Obama Without a Teleprompter!

[Nester6]

I often complain about Obama's policies (spending mostly), and have never bitched about his birth certificate, lapel (not label) pins, or anything you list here. I haven't even said anything about a teleprompter because everyone uses teleprompters. So I think this 'boo hooing' should be directed elsewhere.

Besides, aren't you the one not voting? What do you care? You aren't part of the solution, so why follow politics at all? Seems like you're just making an out for yourself to bitch about whoever gets elected.

I can't wait to vote Obama out of office.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Does everyone in this thread know that pretty much everyone in this thread appears to be mentally retarded because of the thoughts expressed in this thread?

From one retard to another - seriously? Are you arguing to convince someone, or just to argue? Or is it just because you're a fucking dumbass?

 

[ban-one]

They act as fact-checkers, that's right - facts - something you seem to be allergic to.

No, I'm not allergic to facts. I've given plenty. And just because someone 'acts' as fact checkers, doesn't mean they don't have a bias or ulterior motives.

Right, you didn't. You were just hinting it using a debunked old video.

In case you missed it, the original response (Which I notice in your quote of me, you left out if it is in fact me who said it, or even the little button to get to that original post for someone to see for themselves. Mighty convenient for that one to not have my handle or the button to jump to what I fully said. That's what tipped me off as to what was really going on. That this is just an effort to take what I said completely out of context, and make me look bad. You may now do your cartoonish villain "Curses, foiled again.") was in an effort to refute the assertion that the right thinks he's a Muslim. Just like all the other responses above and below were refuting assertions of the right. I don't know why I didn't realize this earlier, too many things going on at once I suppose, but that statement of mine has been taken out of context. Just that one gets quoted, I don't go back and see the context, and it looks bad all by itself, and I think I have to explain myself. But if you see the entire context, with the others around it, and the quoted post I'm refuting, if you can't see that what I said was in effort to refute assertions that the right thinks Obama is a Muslim, I don't know you ever will. So, why the hell would I say he is, or hint at it, if I'm trying to refute the assertion the right thinks he is a Muslim, just like I was refuting all those other things? So, in summation, this is the last time (if I can remember) I'm responding to that. So, you guys just go right ahead and continue to take it out of context all you want. We both know you will, and we both know who's right. Oh, and I'll be able to sleep just fine knowing I've got people who thought they had me in a corner and on defense, and never really did and I never should've been, stewing and simmering that I caught on to what was happening and don't care anymore, and won't continue with this little game.

The left is not a monolith and do check out what the term 'strawman' means when you get a chance.

You might wanna talk to your leaders about being a 'monolith' or not.

strawman

noun
1. a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man]
2. a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man]
3. an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds [syn: scarecrow]

Which of the three? I would guess probably not 3, but you never know. You could be thinking 'Wizard of Oz.'

Right, advocating for tax cuts that are more evenly distributed is Marxism. A position that many Republicans had including Mccain and the current Senate Minority Leader Mcconell.)

It's Marxism if you redistribute the wealth, which is what it was.

McCain? You're giving me McCain? Does the acronym RINO mean anything to you? As for McConell, I don't know him well enough to make a judgement on him, and it would take too long to accurately assess him to be worth if for this. And you don't have to give me other names, because plenty of Republicans are RINOs. Also, you're assuming I am a Republican. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think I ever claimed that. On the right? Oh, yeah. Republican, no. They moved too far to the left to currently occupy where the Democrat Party used to be long ago. Consider me a Libertarian. You know, basically leave me the hell alone, and if it doesn't hurt or take money from anyone but you, I don't care what you do?

Right, extending private health insurance using tax credits which the leading Conservative think-tank the Heritage Foundation promoted in the 90's is socialized medicine and Marxist. And let's not even talk about Romney here.

I seem to recall that what the Heritage Foundation said was taken out of context, or some other little screwy thing that allowed those on the left to say they were for it, when in actuality, they never were.

Oh, and it's socialized medicine.

I'll leave Romney out of it.

You don't have to live through an era to know what happened during it, that's why we have history books. And Presidents' have something called the veto pen, if they didn't want those tax increases then they could have used it. But do keep assuming whatever you want to believe.

I know, and history books are full of such fascinating, and for you anyway, inconvenient facts. Like Reagan had a Democrat Congress to deal with. And I already said that he had to compromise with them to get any of the things he wanted. If he had vetoed them, he wouldn't have gotten anything he wanted, and neither would the Democrats. I thought the left was big on this whole 'bipartisanship' and 'compromise' thing?

Between, Obama pushed through a lot of tax cuts on his own but since they were not for the top 2%, I guess you never heard of them.

So, where they for people who already paid nothing or next to nothing to begin with, and thus didn't need tax cuts?

First of all, you got the numbers wrong again right after I posted a chart highlighting them. Second, in case you haven't heard there are wars going on along with massive deficits due to a recession, maybe he wanted to close that gap instead of giving all that money to the undeserving poor.

Which numbers? The varying definition of what the left considers 'rich?'

About those charts, first I don't know who the Tax Foundation is for the first one, second the other two had no sources, so how do I know you didn't just pull the numbers from thin air?

I know there are wars going on. Two Obama promised to end, and now a third. So, where's the anti-war left on that one?

Massive deficits due to a recession? Hmm, I seem to recall that the US government has been running deficits for many, many years. Where do you think all that debt came from? Also, it didn't help matters (deficit wise) to just throw money we don't have at it, did it? If someone had learned from history, they would've known how to fix the economy. I believe someone in the early 1920s cut taxes, cut regulation, cut the size of government, and we had alittle something known as the "roaring '20s." Hmm, I may run for Pres to do just that in a few years for a repeat.

Closing the (I assume budget) gap with higher taxes? Maybe. But the far more effective way to close the (again I assume the budget) gap, is to cut spending, and live within your means. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he did wanna give that money to those who paid little or nothing. And did I say 'undeserving poor?' I believe I said something about those who pay little taxes and those who pay none, and getting tax cuts and freebies.

So Bush was Marxist too? He pushed through Medicare Part D, a costlier healthcare program than Obama's.

GWB wasn't exactly the most conservative Republican Pres we've ever had. Better than some, worse than others.

By whose numbers? Besides, they're still finding costs in Obamacare, because as someone put it, they had to pass it for us to find out what's in it. Well, we found out, and what is it, 60% want it repealed, still all this time later?

Oh he is not, Unemployment never touched 10% under Obama like it did under Reagan.

Well, how about that. We agree Reagan and Obama aren't alike.

As to the unemployment rate, I believe someone promised we had to pass some stimulus or unemployment would go above, what 8, 9%, and it still did. And as for the reported unemployment rate, the actual unemployment rate, I believe it is called the under employment rate, is up above 20%.

But this is largely beside the point. Presidents have very little to do with unemployment rates. (Bet you never thought I'd say that with a Democrat in the WH, huh?) Many things go into unemployment rates that they have little or no control over.

 

[abrogate]

I have news for you. Many, many people do not believe the theory of evolution because it can't explain everything (Like we all came from a few chemicals in some bubbling ooze that some how came together to make life? If that were true, shouldn't we be able to reproduce that in a lab?), or in the theory of man-made global warming.

And by the way, 'global warming' is now 'climate change' because they waffled on whether it would be warmer or colder for decades (which is another reason we're skeptical, not to mention they can't get the short-range weather forecast right, so we're to believe they can over a hundred years?), so they just gave up and said "it'll change," but of course the climate changes. It's been doing that for millions of years. That's what it does. It was warmer when there were dinosaurs, colder when we first came onto this planet (Ice Age, wooly mammoth, saber tooth tiger, any of these ring a bell?) Then it got warmer, enough so that Greenland was green, then it got cold again, and the Vikings left. How do you think all that climate change happened? A few million humans with their camp fires? And have you ever heard of the year without a summer? Caused by a volcanic eruption that put more crap into the air than we ever could. And you know that big glowing thing in the sky? It has alot to do with the temperature of the planet.

And one more thing, it takes one helluva ego and a vast amount of arrogance to truly believe that humans can significantly alter a planet’s climate and cause significant damage to the environment, especially using things that came from and exist naturally in the very planet and environment in question. Short of a nuclear war, there’s no way humans can significantly affect a planet’s climate. And even then, it’ll just be temporary and the vast majority of the people and all the other life forms will survive. It sure as hell ain’t gonna happen from anything we piddling humans can do, or cause with the living of our lives.

And I have a word for you 'lemming.' Look it up, because it applies to those following 'man-made climate change' because it is not about saving the planet. It is about people like Al Gore getting richer and redistributing the wealth, while the rest of us 'little people' give up our better lives of living more comfortably, having more food, and having conveniences. The very things they wanna us get rid of, but not them, oh, no.

Do you really need to call me a "Lemming"? Is that nice or are you just being mean and baiting me?

I took the homework and did look it up. I didn't see where lemmings were capable of research and reason.

There is fact and theory associated with Evolution. A few of the facts are that evolution occurs. Also, that man and dinosaurs did not walk the planet at the same time. The earth is older than 10,000 years. (this was the point I was making)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

As far as global warming goes, there is quite a bit of spin on it, but Hannity and the butthead Gore aside, the data supports it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

I hear what you are saying about the earth being warmer millions of years ago.

Carbon Dioxide is 100ppm higher than it has been in the past. It typically moves up and down capping at 300, it is at 400 now. Since I did my homework, your homework is to look up photosynthesis.

 

[accountantNOT]

Did you seriously write that? "matters of science is about the scientific consensus and not about majority beliefs" I'm sorry, I believe by its very definiti0on 'a consensus' is majority belief. Look it up.

:rofl2::rofl2:

Thanks for the laughs.

First of all I was talking about the 'scientific consensus' as opposed to 'public opinion' aka majority beliefs'.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.

We don't believe, and 'believe' is the key word there, because of all the times our planet's climate has changed without any possible interference by us, but now if it is happening, it's our fault? And I wouldn't call our belief in Intelligent Design 'flimsy,' if I were you.

Right, its all natural except the CO2 that is being pumped into the atmosphere, just like old times.

I would submit to you that 'man-made climate change' is just as much a religion as it is anything because of how much faith is in it actually happening, or that we're causing it, with no tangible proof. And actually, 'consensus' has nothing to do with science. What is is, whether one person, or two million, say it.

Right, from the National Academy of Sciences to every respectable scientific body is indulging in a massive conspiracy to promote voodoo science. :rofl2:

I'm sorry, I didn't know I got talking points. Besides, even if I did question and debunk your stuff with my stuff (which I have to my satisfaction), I'm not gonna change your mind, now am I? Just like you're not gonna change mine.

And it's the left who see AGW as religion, the irony. :rofl2:

Seriously? You're citing me Wikipedia? Really? How desperate are you? I have a feeling of deja vu, but here goes. Any and everyone can and does edit Wikipedia, no matter their background, or if they have expertise, let alone knowledge, in that area(and most do not). Many times things are edited for political gain. Just ask Rush and Glenn Beck. They're pages get edited by the left all the time. You cannot trust Wikipedia. You have no idea who wrote what.

I linked to references directly, what's so wrong with that? When you cannot refute something, attack the source. Very predictable.

More deja vu, 'peer reviewed' by like-minded scientists. And as for the 'nobler intentions than the oil companies,' how 'bout GE? You don't think they stand to profit greatly if all this stuff gets done? They had 'Green' Week' seemingly every month on their channels for propaganda purposes, and they make those squirrely little CFLs. Oh, and I hope you don't break one of those. Lots of mercury. Very, very toxic. EPA has to come in and clean it up. Cost you lots of money. (personally, I'd just scoop the damn thing up and toss it in the trash, cut out the expensive middle man) But, they're gonna be tossed in the trash and crushed at landfills anyway when they burn out. I know, 'cause I've done it. Hmm. Maybe we should've stuck to the incandescent light. Worst they could do is cut you with the glass.

How about answering a direct question with a direct answer? Nobody said GE has good intentions but why aren't fossil fuel companies - which fund most of the Anti-AGW studies held to the same standard.

What is with the left and the Koch brothers? Jeez, let it go. And by the way, you have a very large assumption there that I even care about what the Koch brothers do. Apparently because I'm on the right, I must know who they are and agree with them. I can't even tell you who they are, or what they do. I've heard of them, and know enough to know the left likes to harp on them, but that's all. I have no idea if I agree with anything of theirs.

I was just pointing out that it might not be a conspiracy when right wing think-tanks out to deny AGW end up advocating for them.

Also, did you read what's just under the main headline that tells you everything you need to know?

"A UC Berkeley team's preliminary findings in a review of temperature data confirm global warming studies."

Hmm, 'UC Berkeley,' and 'preliminary findings.' Don't hafta read beyond that to know what that story's worth. Not even the paper, or hard drive space, that story is printed on.

Right, that's just another conspiracy. :rofl2:

And more deja vu, science is not consensus. A consensus of scientists said the world was flat. Consensus is just basically mob rule.

Look up scientific consensus again along with the word 'consensus'.

 

[accountantNOT]

No, I'm not allergic to facts. I've given plenty. And just because someone 'acts' as fact checkers, doesn't mean they don't have a bias or ulterior motives.

Just assume away about their motives when you didn't know who they were a day ago.

In case you missed it, the original response (Which I notice in your quote of me, you left out if it is in fact me who said it, or even the little button to get to that original post for someone to see for themselves. Mighty convenient for that one to not have my handle or the button to jump to what I fully said. That's what tipped me off as to what was really going on. That this is just an effort to take what I said completely out of context, and make me look bad. You may now do your cartoonish villain "Curses, foiled again.") was in an effort to refute the assertion that the right thinks he's a Muslim. Just like all the other responses above and below were refuting assertions of the right. I don't know why I didn't realize this earlier, too many things going on at once I suppose, but that statement of mine has been taken out of context. Just that one gets quoted, I don't go back and see the context, and it looks bad all by itself, and I think I have to explain myself. But if you see the entire context, with the others around it, and the quoted post I'm refuting, if you can't see that what I said was in effort to refute assertions that the right thinks Obama is a Muslim, I don't know you ever will. So, why the hell would I say he is, or hint at it, if I'm trying to refute the assertion the right thinks he is a Muslim, just like I was refuting all those other things? So, in summation, this is the last time (if I can remember) I'm responding to that. So, you guys just go right ahead and continue to take it out of context all you want. We both know you will, and we both know who's right. Oh, and I'll be able to sleep just fine knowing I've got people who thought they had me in a corner and on defense, and never really did and I never should've been, stewing and simmering that I caught on to what was happening and don't care anymore, and won't continue with this little game.

Then do supply the context was for saying this.

Muslim? Don't know what's in his heart. He did screw up once and say he was, and then a reporter had to correct him.

That was your entire quote in response to this statement

The same right that claims the president is a non-citizen, anti-american, muslim marxist.

This is exactly the problem with Conservatives. They aren't all dumb - it's just that the ones who aren't, are all dishonest to the point that you can put their own words in front of them and they will continue to insist that they didn't say what they said. These aren't people with whom you can reason or compromise since they'd rather live in a dysfunctional world built upon their fantasies than one in which they have to admit that like all human beings, they are sometimes wrong.

You might wanna talk to your leaders about being a 'monolith' or not.

What does this even mean? Talk to the leaders?

strawman

noun
1. a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man]
2. a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man]
3. an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds [syn: scarecrow]

Which of the three? I would guess probably not 3, but you never know. You could be thinking 'Wizard of Oz.'

Try this, http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

It's Marxism if you redistribute the wealth, which is what it was.

McCain? You're giving me McCain? Does the acronym RINO mean anything to you? As for McConell, I don't know him well enough to make a judgement on him, and it would take too long to accurately assess him to be worth if for this. And you don't have to give me other names, because plenty of Republicans are RINOs. Also, you're assuming I am a Republican. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think I ever claimed that. On the right? Oh, yeah. Republican, no. They moved too far to the left to currently occupy where the Democrat Party used to be long ago. Consider me a Libertarian. You know, basically leave me the hell alone, and if it doesn't hurt or take money from anyone but you, I don't care what you do?

Clever deflection but the question was not about Mccain being a RINO, it was about Marxism. Either he is a Marxist, along with Mcconell and many other Republicans whom I can easily quote or THEY ARE NOT. Don't try to interchange words to suit your arguments.

I seem to recall that what the Heritage Foundation said was taken out of context, or some other little screwy thing that allowed those on the left to say they were for it, when in actuality, they never were.
Oh, and it's socialized medicine.

No they weren't but believe whatever you want.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...credits-to-create-an-affordable-health-system

And this plan had a PUBLIC OPTION unlike Obama's plan. Time to call them Marixst and Socialist too??

I know, and history books are full of such fascinating, and for you anyway, inconvenient facts. Like Reagan had a Democrat Congress to deal with. And I already said that he had to compromise with them to get any of the things he wanted. If he had vetoed them, he wouldn't have gotten anything he wanted, and neither would the Democrats. I thought the left was big on this whole 'bipartisanship' and 'compromise' thing?

So where are the facts? Even a cursory research will show you that Reagan backed tax increases during his term, I am sure you don't want to find out.

Which numbers? The varying definition of what the left considers 'rich?'

About those charts, first I don't know who the Tax Foundation is for the first one, second the other two had no sources, so how do I know you didn't just pull the numbers from thin air?

What exactly do you know? Tax Foundation is a Conservative think-tank for starters, I am sure they wont misrepresent data to hurt their side.

I know there are wars going on. Two Obama promised to end, and now a third. So, where's the anti-war left on that one?

Except that he didn't. He promised to escalate Afghanistan and drawdown Iraq. And Libya is a NATO led mission, the only way US can pull out of it is by giving up its membership.

Massive deficits due to a recession? Hmm, I seem to recall that the US government has been running deficits for many, many years.

Pay attention to the word MASSIVE, in 2007 the deficit was around 200 billion dollars compared to 2008 when it was 1.3 trillion without any significant change in regular government spending.

Where do you think all that debt came from?

Mostly from tax cuts and wars.

Closing the (I assume budget) gap with higher taxes? Maybe. But the far more effective way to close the (again I assume the budget) gap, is to cut spending, and live within your means. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he did wanna give that money to those who paid little or nothing. And did I say 'undeserving poor?' I believe I said something about those who pay little taxes and those who pay none, and getting tax cuts and freebies.

Except the Republicans do not want to cut spending where it has actually increased i.e. the defense spending.

By whose numbers? Besides, they're still finding costs in Obamacare, because as someone put it, they had to pass it for us to find out what's in it. Well, we found out, and what is it, 60% want it repealed, still all this time later?

That's another lie. HCR has been scored mutliple times without any significant change in its costs.

From the CBO.

The increase owes almost entirely to the shift in the budget window; as you can see in the figure below, the revisions in any single year are quite small. Over the eight-year period (2012-2019) that is common to our original analysis and the most recent one, the net cost of the coverage provisions is now 2 percent higher than CBO and JCT estimated in March 2010.

According to our latest comprehensive estimate of the legislation, the net effect of changes in direct spending and revenues is a reduction in budget deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021period.

As to the unemployment rate, I believe someone promised we had to pass some stimulus or unemployment would go above, what 8, 9%, and it still did. And as for the reported unemployment rate, the actual unemployment rate, I believe it is called the under employment rate, is up above 20%.

Another lie

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...bama-said-stimulus-would-cap-unemployment-8-/

 

[YMIHERE]

I have news for you. Many, many people do not believe the theory of evolution because it can't explain everything (Like we all came from a few chemicals in some bubbling ooze that some how came together to make life? If that were true, shouldn't we be able to reproduce that in a lab?), or in the theory of man-made global warming.

And by the way, 'global warming' is now 'climate change' because they

Those who criticize evolution usually don’t know much about it. Evolution only explains the diversity of species thought natural selection. That life on this planet evolved into different species is a fact. The argument among scientist is exactly how it happened not whether or not speciation happened. Evolution says nothing on the origin of life. It’s a right wing theme to dump on the intellectual elitist. They think, dam the elitists with their facts and figures and numbers and statistics and fancy degrees. The uninformed and uneducated common man knows best. God help us if these religious nuts take over.

 

[emceeemcee]

I give you credit for your use of logic to get to you're little gotcha there about the oxygen, however your moment of logical thinking must've been fleeting, because you didn't go the step or two further beyond that. First, it wouldn't be an overnight change, and I would assume you believe in evolution to some degree. Even I concede it must happen at some level, because things adapt to their changing surroundings. So, wouldn't creatures adapt and change? You know there was more oxygen back when the dinosaurs were around. That's why they and all those bugs were so big. It's happened before, and it can happen again.

Yes it happened before, with a great deal of disruption. Now that there are more people on the planet than ever before there will be even more disruption.

Acting like it's going to be smooth sailing with the loss of a just a few polar bears and penguins shows that you are either ignorant of the potential catastrophic effects we are being warned out by the experts or you are wilfully ignoring them.

And I haven't heard of anyone on our side not wanting their data scrutinized, to just get the other side out there. But they aren't allowed to even do that. They're just dismissed because they don't tow the line, and your side can't afford to have a counter view. Why else do you think they say 'consensus' so much? It's because they don't want us looking at their data. Consensus isn't science. Fact, whatever it may ultimately be, is science.

And I imagine you'll be providing evidence of this massive conspiracy being perpertrated by the scientific journals who are rejecting submissions from 'skeptics' purely on the basis of ideological opposition, right?

Uh-huh. So, you'll just take them from science journals parroting studies paid for by people who stand to gain from 'man-made climate change?' You do that.

I love how you get all uppity about what constitutes good science and then resort to discrediting entire journals with ad-hominem attacks.


:funnyshit:

 

[ban-one]

Does everyone in this thread know that pretty much everyone in this thread appears to be mentally retarded because of the thoughts expressed in this thread?

From one retard to another - seriously? Are you arguing to convince someone, or just to argue? Or is it just because you're a fucking dumbass?

To your first question, I'd say it varies from poster to poster.

To the question of arguing to convince or just to argue, I'd say it also varies, with a third option of trying to refute the other side's claims, which is how I got into this in the first place.

Are we gonna change each other's minds? No.

Might we sway some observer? Maybe.

Is it atleast mildly entertaining? It was for me, especially some of those responses to what I said, like citing Wikipedia and calling names. By the way, if you can't recognize at how ever old you are (atleast 18 right?) that you can't trust Wikipedia and that calling names is not a good way to win an argument and it only hurts your argument because you look 12, you never will.

Also, I've got other, far more important things to do than take on however many of you I did at once for a couple days and on two threads, holding my own just fine. And despite the lopsided numbers, it still wasn't a fair fight because half the time you did my job for me and the rest of the time wasn't even challenging. I mean alotta things you sent my way I knew better when I was in elementary school. Just basic stuff, supposedly, all of us know as fact. (Seriously, you guys need to do better if you hope to convince people to join your side, instead of just indoctrinating kids and college students who don't know better.) It was sorta like several rubber dingies armed with BB guns taking on a battleship. Your shots just plink off my armor, if you even managed to hit me to begin with, with no damage and I blow you out of the water time after time, but you keep coming back for more. So this battleship isn't gonna waste its time on unchallenging opponents anymore, and let you have a very hollow victory that I'm moving on to other things, but we all know who really won.

One more thing, why are we or anyone else here discussing politics on a porn site? I mean, seriously, we don't have enough to talk about there?

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

When I invent a time machine I am taking a copy of this thread back in time as a reference note for when I start a travelling abortion clinic.

 

[Hot Mega]

When I invent a time machine I am taking a copy of this thread back in time as a reference note for when I start a travelling abortion clinic.

Damn...that's worse than DOA....like DBA or something.

Speaking of things dead....ban, man...love ya and you have stamina that would even make a Hot Mega proud. But bro you're getting the snot pounded out of you then stuffed back up the other end in this thread.

But I commend the effort.:hatsoff:

 

[accountantNOT]

T

Is it atleast mildly entertaining? It was for me, especially some of those responses to what I said, like citing Wikipedia and calling names. By the way, if you can't recognize at how ever old you are (atleast 18 right?) that you can't trust Wikipedia and that calling names is not a good way to win an argument and it only hurts your argument because you look 12, you never will.

Notice how he cleverly changes the topic with his bullshit. First he repeated a debunked talking point regarding 'climategate'. But when called out for it with a direct link to REFERENCES in a wikipedia link, he turned it around to criticism of wikipedia - when the link never even referenced any text on wikipedia but linked to multiple outside sources. Even a cursory google search would lead one to multiple resources validating the same but but but a wikipedia link was posted so let me attack that instead of actually adressing the point in question. :rofl2:

 

[Hot Mega]

Notice how he cleverly changes the topic with his bullshit. First he repeated a debunked talking point regarding 'climategate'. But when called out for it with a direct link to REFERENCES in a wikipedia link, he turned it around to criticism of wikipedia - when the link never even referenced any text on wikipedia but linked to multiple outside sources. Even a cursory google search would lead one to multiple resources validating the same but but but a wikipedia link was posted so let me attack that instead of actually adressing the point in question. :rofl2:

I'm thinking at this point even a cursory google search of the term, "beat-down" would return ban-one in the top 100 results.

 

[KillTheIndustry]

When I invent a time machine I am taking a copy of this thread back in time as a reference note for when I start a travelling abortion clinic.

Wait, so you have a time machine, but you want to start an abortion clinic? Why not just go back in time and stop them from getting pregn... Oh, nevermind.

 

[lurkingdirk]

To your first question, I'd say it varies from poster to poster.

To the question of arguing to convince or just to argue, I'd say it also varies, with a third option of trying to refute the other side's claims, which is how I got into this in the first place.

Are we gonna change each other's minds? No.

Might we sway some observer? Maybe.

Is it atleast mildly entertaining? It was for me, especially some of those responses to what I said, like citing Wikipedia and calling names. By the way, if you can't recognize at how ever old you are (atleast 18 right?) that you can't trust Wikipedia and that calling names is not a good way to win an argument and it only hurts your argument because you look 12, you never will.

Also, I've got other, far more important things to do than take on however many of you I did at once for a couple days and on two threads, holding my own just fine. And despite the lopsided numbers, it still wasn't a fair fight because half the time you did my job for me and the rest of the time wasn't even challenging. I mean alotta things you sent my way I knew better when I was in elementary school. Just basic stuff, supposedly, all of us know as fact. (Seriously, you guys need to do better if you hope to convince people to join your side, instead of just indoctrinating kids and college students who don't know better.) It was sorta like several rubber dingies armed with BB guns taking on a battleship. Your shots just plink off my armor, if you even managed to hit me to begin with, with no damage and I blow you out of the water time after time, but you keep coming back for more. So this battleship isn't gonna waste its time on unchallenging opponents anymore, and let you have a very hollow victory that I'm moving on to other things, but we all know who really won.

One more thing, why are we or anyone else here discussing politics on a porn site? I mean, seriously, we don't have enough to talk about there?

A couple of reactions:
1. I didn't actually expect a serious answer, thanks.
2. There is a lot of value in Wikipedia - I know it isn't the source to end all arguments, but often there are sources cited and/or provided in the article that are the definitive work on whatever topic is being discussed. Don't dismiss all of Wiki, it makes you look foolish.
3. I can guarantee that I have more formal education than you do. I'd advise against talking down to people you don't know.
4. No one, not even you, is quite smart enough to be smug and cocky. The above posts seems to exhibit your excessive smugness. If I have misread it, I apologise. If I haven't misread it, well, you are belying your personal insecurities.

Thankyouandhaveaniceday.

 

[abrogate]

why are we or anyone else here discussing politics on a porn site?

Best question I've seen posted here.