The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='Knoell']have you not figured out that you are wrong yet? Or are you really just going on and on about this so you won't have to admit it?[/QUOTE]

Refresh my memory in the other thread please.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']this thread seems a lot more fun than than it was 72 hours ago[/QUOTE]
72 hours ago this thread was just Strell arguing with the wall. Now there's people arguing with him.

Hilarity ensues
 
[quote name='dorino']While Strell can't come off without flaming, Knoell and UncleBob can't come off without being condescending assholes.

So the world evens out.[/QUOTE]
That's two to one though, that isn't even.

Knoell and/or Bob- "Myke counts as at least two."
 
Meh, I always figured people who deny reality weren't as valuable to the planet as those who know what they're talking about and think in the real world.
 
[quote name='dorino']Knoell and UncleBob can't come off without being condescending assholes.[/QUOTE]

I just can't see it.

It's hard to be condescending when you can't spell the word, you work at walmart, and your go-to debate strategy is constantly asking 'why' like a 3 year-old. UB doesn't come off as condescending, he comes off as an ignorant rube.
 
[quote name='dorino']While Strell can't come off without flaming, Knoell and UncleBob can't come off without being condescending assholes.

So the world evens out.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't really describe knoell as condescending, what really annoys me about knoell is how blatantly he tries to move goalposts when "arguing".

When asked to actually be held down to one actual argument he has a goddamned hissy fit.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I wouldn't really describe knoell as condescending, what really annoys me about knoell is how blatantly he tries to move goalposts when "arguing".

When asked to actually be held down to one actual argument he has a goddamned hissy fit.[/QUOTE]

Prove it.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Prove it.[/QUOTE]

*Puts on me tivo hat.*

Very droll FoC.

Anyway... besides your most recent grappling (I'm sure you had a previous experience) with knoell there was the time I asked knoell in the healthcare thread if he had any idea or cared where all the extra money we spend on healthcare in this country goes.

He didn't even try because it would be a bit harder for him to move said goalposts after.
 
[quote name='camoor']I just can't see it.

It's hard to be condescending when you can't spell the word, you work at walmart, and your go-to debate strategy is constantly asking 'why' like a 3 year-old. UB doesn't come off as condescending, he comes off as an ignorant rube.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Someone mentions individuals who can't make a post without flaming and camoor is ready with a flaming reply. Neat.
 
Almost nine years after the 9/11 attacks, the United States has yet to confront the threat posed by the extremist and irreconcilable wing of Islam. Former Speaker of the House and AEI senior fellow Newt Gingrich will warn that now is the time to awaken from self-deception about the nature of our enemies and rebuild a bipartisan commitment, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to defend America. Drawing on the lessons of Camus and Orwell, Gingrich will describe the dangers of a wartime government that uses language and misleading labels to obscure reality.
Click to expand...

This thread is about pointing out crazy Republican ideas...get the fuck outta here with your trolling shit.

Anyways, GOP hypocrisy of wartime gov't using language and labels to obscure reality.

Aaaand...GO!
 
[quote name='Msut77']I wouldn't really describe knoell as condescending, what really annoys me about knoell is how blatantly he tries to move goalposts when "arguing".

When asked to actually be held down to one actual argument he has a goddamned hissy fit.[/QUOTE]

Hahahahahahahaha, thats hilarious. Who is moving goal posts? I think our last discussion went like this.

Me: There was a poll on healthcare, the public did not approve.
You: People don't know whats in it, once explained they did like it.
Me: The poll quoted did not include a detailed explanation of the entire bill, just good old highlights, some bad, many good.
You: People don't need to be explained the bad, they know some bad comes with the good.
Me: So people needed to hear the good parts of the bill so they will support it, but they don't need to hear the bad parts of the bill?
You: Theres more than one poll out there.
Me: Show me another one.
You: My friends little brother benefits from this bill! :cry:
 
I like your mode of debate, Knoell.

Knoell: x + y = 5.
Me: If x = 2 and y = 1, x + y = 3.
Knoell: x and y don't equal 2 and 1.
Me: What do you think x and y equal?
Knoell: Why should I say what I think x and y equal?
Me: Using your data, it might construct a scenario where you're right or wrong.
Knoell: Not a good enough explanation. Not enough spoonfeeding. I WIN! I WIN! I WIN!!!1111!!258A~~!!!!
Me: We haven't really started an argument.
Knoell: I declared victory and I won't spend any more time on the topic other than to declare victory again.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I like your mode of debate, Knoell.

Knoell: x + y = 5.
Me: If x = 2 and y = 1, x + y = 3.
Knoell: x and y don't equal 2 and 1.
Me: What do you think x and y equal?
Knoell: Why should I say what I think x and y equal?
Me: Using your data, it might construct a scenario where you're right or wrong.
Knoell: Not a good enough explanation. Not enough spoonfeeding. I WIN! I WIN! I WIN!!!1111!!258A~~!!!!
Me: We haven't really started an argument.
Knoell: I declared victory and I won't spend any more time on the topic other than to declare victory again.[/QUOTE]

The problem with your theory is that you just want a number, you don't want the details behind the formula of that problem. All you want to prove is that any number times 12 will be less than the subsidization of cars. My point is that you cannot use any number to calculate that, because you will be comparing a hypothetical calculation to a real world number. If you want to go and research how much it will cost to build train tracks and such to the extent that it will service 98% of the people, go ahead, it would be interesting, but multiplying the cost now by 12 is not an accurate way of doing it.

Again I'll ask you if government subsidies back when cars serviced 1% were multiplied by 12, would it equal what we spend now? (adjusting for inflation of course)
 
[quote name='Knoell']The problem with your theory is that you just want a number, you don't want the details behind the formula of that problem. All you want to prove is that any number times 12 will be less than the subsidization of cars. My point is that you cannot use any number to calculate that, because you will be comparing a hypothetical calculation to a real world number. If you want to go and research how much it will cost to build train tracks and such to the extent that it will service 98% of the people, go ahead, it would be interesting, but multiplying the cost now by 12 is not an accurate way of doing it.

Again I'll ask you if government subsidies back when cars serviced 1% were multiplied by 12, would it equal what we spend now? (adjusting for inflation of course)[/QUOTE]

Blah, blah, blah. I asked for a data point. If you wanted that point to represent 0%-100% of transportation needs serviced by trains, airplanes, cars or Charon, that's fine.

As far as how I would calculate my data, you have no idea because I have no idea. You provided no point to go above or below. I collected no data. Depending on the point you could have provided and what it could have represented, there may have been no need for extrapolation.

For that minor debate, you very well could be right. However, your inability to think abstractly prevents any discussion. I can bust my virtual ass to prove a point, but you'll just post "I don't understand." and think that's a valid critique.

When people's responses to you are laughter emoticons, you think they're just being mean liberals.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Blah, blah, blah. I asked for a data point. If you wanted that point to represent 0%-100% of transportation needs serviced by trains, airplanes, cars or Charon, that's fine.

As far as how I would calculate my data, you have no idea because I have no idea. You provided no point to go above or below. I collected no data. Depending on the point you could have provided and what it could have represented, there may have been no need for extrapolation.

For that minor debate, you very well could be right. However, your inability to think abstractly prevents any discussion. I can bust my virtual ass to prove a point, but you'll just post "I don't understand." and think that's a valid critique.

When people's responses to you are laughter emoticons, you think they're just being mean liberals.[/QUOTE]

So your entire point here is that I won't give you a made up number that won't really prove anything so somehow I am holding up the discussion. In the correct thread I have already brought up another point that instead of actually looking into, you first ignored it, then ridiculed it without fully understanding it. It seems you are the one preventing the discussion.

You are correct when a bunch of like minded people get together, theres bound to be tons of emoticons.
 
[quote name='dorino']I like how knoell is being a condescending asshole :V[/QUOTE]

If we handed out hats to everyone on this forum that was some kind of asshole, we'd have to buy out an entire hat store.
 
Ooooh look at us, we're so patriotic and upstanding REAL 'mericans! We love our national heroes who fight for us every day and go to war so we can sit on our fat asses and do nothing but complain about gay homo icky man sex. We have bumper stickers! BUMPER STICKERS! And we're keeping our nation away from horrors such as heavily therapuetic natural plants and condoms.

But give money to the men and women who, on first response to the 9/11 attack, are now slowly dying from poison lifted into the air that day? Oh god no.

But fret not, everyone. Anthony Weiner already raged hard enough for the rest of us by calling those idiots the idiot douchebags they are. Check it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4zwCMf8dsc&feature=player_embedded
I'm betting troy or UB will respond with some generic "You mad?" sort of post. Let's watch!
Coffee is for closers, fucknuts.
 
wrong thread Strell. Weiner was calling out Peter King's bullshit, and Msut already has a thread devoted to Peter King (congressional colostomy bag thread.)

not giving $ to 9/11 responders? Yeah stay classy guys.
 
[quote name='IRHari']wrong thread Strell. Weiner was calling out Peter King's bullshit, and Msut already has a thread devoted to Peter King (congressional colostomy bag thread.)

not giving $ to 9/11 responders? Yeah stay classy guys.[/QUOTE]

Strell made a Mamet reference, your argument is invalid.
 
Sometimes it's really hard to bite your tongue when a friend says something that makes you *facepalm*. This time it was a friend's defense of tax cuts for the rich, basically towing the Reagan line that "The rich people create the jobs."
 
633747262199617010-Reaganomics.jpg
 
The genie is already out of the bottle. There's no way the government will give up the power of setting the value of the dollar to foreign currencies.

Money is power and have you ever known a government that willingly gave up power?
 
[quote name='depascal22']The genie is already out of the bottle. There's no way the government will give up the power of setting the value of the dollar to foreign currencies.

Money is power and have you ever known a government that willingly gave up power?[/QUOTE]

So let's give them more and more! What could possibly go wrong?
 
[quote name='depascal22']The genie is already out of the bottle. There's no way the government will give up the power of setting the value of the dollar to foreign currencies.

Money is power and have you ever known a government that willingly gave up power?[/QUOTE]

Don't let metal derail this into a gold standard "discussion".
 
[quote name='depascal22']The genie is already out of the bottle. There's no way the government will give up the power of setting the value of the dollar to foreign currencies.

Money is power and have you ever known a government that willingly gave up power?[/QUOTE]
They won't willingly give it up, but there are a number of ways they could be forced to. One would be a lost in confidence in the dollar, and a move toward another reserve currency. Another would be a revolution. I would certainly hope that we can fix this and other problems simply by voting for better people, or a populist resurgence.
[quote name='Msut77']Don't let metal derail this into a gold standard "discussion".[/QUOTE]
You posted the article calling for a return to the gold standard. If you wish I will gladly make a separate topic for that.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']You posted the article calling for a return to the gold standard.[/QUOTE]

If that was the entirety of what you took from the stockman op-ed I posted you can clearly see why I put discussion in quote marks.
 
[quote name='Msut77']If that was the entirety of what you took from the stockman op-ed I posted you can clearly see why I put discussion in quote marks.[/QUOTE]
He had it as one of the three main tenets of his plan. I thought it was the most divisive issue he raised. As it was the most divisive, I decided to post about it.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Awesome links, Msut. Too bad conservatives will never read it because they equate it with the writings of Aleister Crowley.[/QUOTE]

Most people won't read it because most people have Msut on ignore.
 
Because for years Msut has been nothing but a juvenile-level bomb thrower that brings about as much to the table as a common fly does to the dinner table. So he has been blocked by many people here on both sides of the political spectrum.

Has something changed?
 
To be honest, I've only seen the bombs thrown at the people that need them like Knoell and Bob. And I'm guilty of my fair share of them also.
 
It's possible he's grown up now, I really wouldn't know - he's been blocked for years.

Most people grow up eventually. I will unblock him and see what he has to say then.

Edit: Judging by his last post, It's not going so well...
 
You just pulled a Bob though. You just said that he's a juvenile bomb thrower. He came back with something else and then you pretend like he's the one that brought the conversation to that point.
 
Enough about me.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/bob-inglis-tea-party-casualty

Priceless:

During his primary campaign, Inglis repeatedly encountered enraged conservatives whom he couldn't—or wouldn't—satisfy. Shortly before the runoff primary election, Inglis met with about a dozen tea party activists at the modest ranch-style home of one of them. Here's what took place:

I sat down, and they said on the back of your Social Security card, there's a number. That number indicates the bank that bought you when you were born based on a projection of your life's earnings, and you are collateral. We are all collateral for the banks. I have this look like, "What the heck are you talking about?" I'm trying to hide that look and look clueless. I figured clueless was better than argumentative. So they said, "You don't know this?! You are a member of Congress, and you don't know this?!" And I said, "Please forgive me. I'm just ignorant of these things." And then of course, it turned into something about the Federal Reserve and the Bilderbergers and all that stuff. And now you have the feeling of anti-Semitism here coming in, mixing in. Wow.
 
So I read the CBO report on Ryan's budget and I'm thinking holy crap. A Republican actually has a plan that doesn't look like complete dog shit that might be a starting point for real negotiation on getting a spending bill done that doesn't further blow up the deficit.

Of course it's a lie.

The CBO restating what Ryan asked to score:
Other Tax Provisions. The proposal would make significant changes to the tax system. However, as specified by your staff, for this analysis total federal tax revenues are assumed to equal those under CBO's alternative fiscal scenario (which is one interpretation of what it would mean to continue current fiscal policy) until they reach 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2030, and to remain at that share of GDP thereafter.
Click to expand...
So we're assuming that the tax rate stays roughly the same as today. But does Ryan's plan materially affect tax revenue?
replace the corporate income tax with a business consumption tax, and exclude from tax dividends, capital gains, interest, and estates.
Click to expand...
lol. Basically eliminating taxes that rich people pay. What, no payroll tax decrease? Of course not.

Stay classy, shitbags.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top