At 6/29/09 10:56 PM, Elfer wrote: I like Keith Olbermann because it feels like I'm watching the opinion section of a news broadcast from the 50s.

Except you must switch the words communism with conservatism

In terms of political hackery, and in terms of oblivious cock-sucking of party identity and unconditional obedience to party lines, who is more of a tool?

Sean Hannity on the right, or Keith Olbermann on the left?

I think Keith Olbermann is worse. Sean Hannity is a douche, hypocrite, and criticizes the opposing party for things his own party does, but Olbermann is all that, and he hates. I mean really, hates. Like, vitriolic hate.

Sometimes I switch over to Olbermann on the TV, or O Reilly, you know, just to remind myself why I should always stay in the center, and Olbermann was criticizing the Supreme Court justices for overturning Sotomayor's ruling that you can't throw out the white firefighter's test results on the basis of race. Like, really? What a tool.

Are blacks just not as smart? Are they not studying as hard? Was the test culturally biased?

I guess SevenSeize has a more knowledgeable opinion on this since she's a teacher, but I don't understand why blacks and hispanics do worse on tests.

This is definitely going to come up in Sotomayor's nomination hearings. From what I understand, Sotomayor had to side with the city, because that's what the law called for, even if she didn't like it.

Either way though, like I said in the other thread, this is reverse racism at its worst.

lock my thread plz

At 6/28/09 10:35 PM, GoldHippo wrote: Isn't Anarcho Capitalists an oxymoron? How can you have Anarchy and Capitalism?

Anarchy is the purest form of capitalism. Capitalism calls for less gov't regulation, letting the market fend for itself, letting failures fail and winners succeed.

fighters. Seriously, we need more characters for topic title. Anyways...

link

Sort of a bitch slap to the face Supreme Court nominee Sonya Sotomayor, a high court ruled that the white fighters test results can not be thrown out on the basis of race.

Honestly, fuck diversity. I don't give a shit if only whites pass the test, you can't throw out the results on the basis that unqualified blacks didn't study hard enough. This is reverse racism at its worst, and there is no excuse for this abhorrent behavior.

WAAAH, THE BLACK FIREFIGHTERS DIDNT PASS. Fuck them. If you wanted to do better than maybe you should've studied as hard as your white counterparts. Hell, you failed the test when a dyslexic white firefighter passed the test almost with 100%? What kind of fucking failure do you have to be lose on the test to someone who's dyslexic? And then you wanted the test thrown out? Pathetic.

link

Quite frankly, I feel this is way too harsh. Perhaps 100 years would have been a reasonable sentence.

At 6/29/09 11:48 AM, Grammer wrote:

At 6/29/09 03:07 AM, fli wrote: I'm actually in this picture...

Where I don't see you

I'm sorry that was mean. You're handsome, if I was into guys anyways.

At 6/29/09 03:07 AM, fli wrote: I'm actually in this picture...

Where I don't see you

At 6/29/09 01:45 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/29/09 01:36 AM, Grammer wrote: avie it wasn't trolling, it was a joke.

We've had this debate before. I'm not interested in having it again. Move on.

It's a matter of fact. Trolling is when you say something that you don't really believe to get a reaction out of people. It was a joke. I'm sorry you interpreted that way.

Not that I'm aware of. Did you make sure to put "NG Help" in the subject line?

...fuck.

Okay thanks.

avie it wasn't trolling, it was a joke.

Also does Wade have him PMs off? I sent him a question about the art portal, but he still hasn't responded. I heard admins had the ability to "turn off" PM, which is sort of like blocking everyone except you don't know they can't receive your pm.

At 6/28/09 01:03 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: If I take what Grammer said at face value (haven't looked anything up myself) it looks like the OT was mostly kept intact but just some customs and rules that Christianity saw no use for got tossed. Although again for me the problem with the bible is was it tossed by Jesus? Or was it tossed by later authors? Whole other can of worms though and completely irrelevant to the topic.

Jesus said he didn't come to change the law, but rather to fulfill it, which never made sense to me, because the rules on what you should and shouldn't do did actually change, but whatever.

At 6/28/09 11:38 AM, WadeFulp wrote: According to Fox News,

LOL

Hey losers stop banning people for no fucking reason.

At 6/27/09 10:19 PM, Ocean wrote: EvilJesus kicked me for personal reasons, this is corrupt moderarion

Corrupt mods? On my stickam?

It's more likely than you think

If you go on conservative forums like Sean Hannity's, most people there still hold onto the belief that Saddam was somehow a threat to the United States. It's kind of sad, really.

You guys shouldn't have kicked me. I haven't had so much fun trolling in who knows how when

At 6/27/09 05:42 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I'M BACK FROM FLORIDA. IT WAS FUN AND I CAUGHT CRABS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

lol u have crabs

At 6/27/09 10:52 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/26/09 08:41 PM, Grammer wrote:

I've decided to debunk this with quotes.

On this page I said this:
"His tactic is to interrupt people before they can finish their statements and if they attempt to finish he gets progressively louder."

I NEVER mentioned the Dawkins video. YOU were the first to mention it.

What the fuck do you think we were talking about.

"He wasn't doing that at all with Dawkins"

I NEVER said he was shouting at Dawkins I said he interrupted Dawkins.

Way to split hairs

A tactic DOES not need to be performed continuously because the DEFINITION does not state it should.

Regarding your insult:
"No, those were the words you heard, not what was actually said."

This is an assertion, not an insult.

It's a demeaning statement. I'm saying you're not paying attention. How do I prove you're not paying attention other than the fact that you misinterpreted what was said?

If making childish one-liner posts and having terrible debating skills riddled with moronic acronyms, staw mans, quote mines, unproven assertions etc makes you a big boy, then you definitely are a big boy. Congrats on your spamming.

Oh noes, I'm dealing with a master-debator here.

I've read your posts.

OH NO I'M CORNERED.

You are a borderline troll and I've seen you around on Stickam. I'm finished arguing with you. If you want to feel like a 'big boy' and claim a win, go ahead. But continuously debating like a half whit till the opponent is fed up with you isn't debating. It's being an annoyance and now I know why people don't speak to you.

At 6/26/09 11:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I know it's inconvenient, but the Old Testament does still apply because Christians didn't toss it out, they've just tended to pick and choose how to do things and seem to believe God mellowed out after having a kid.

It is without dispute that Jesus tells us stuff in the NT that some stuff in the OT doesn't apply anymore. Those are the only ones that really change. Death penalty, Sabbath, Kosher meals, that basic stuff.

I've been here for half a decade today. I demand mr pibb

At 6/26/09 06:57 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/26/09 06:36 PM, Grammer wrote: What the fuck are you talking about. This isn't a fact to prove. You heard things that weren't actually said in the debate.

You made an assertion.

And now I'm telling you to back it up with evidence otherwise your claim means nothing.

No, I made an insult. It's like I'm saying you're an idiot, then you're saying prove it, but you want me to prove an insult, which pretty much makes you an idiot. Ironically, therefore proving it.

Congratz

These rules don't apply

I said it anyways to spite you

What a grave error you've made and if you read the Bible in full you'd know what this is.

Do you? I'm not giving any more clues.

I doubt you even own a Bible let alone have read it.

Okay, well, you're wrong. The Old Testament rules don't apply. If you haven't noticed, the two books have different ways of addressing things.

Old Testament God: You can kill them if they did something to really piss me off

New Testament Jesus: Let he who is without sin throw the first stone

So, yeah, they're different, and whodda thunk it, I'm going with the NT on this one. It says don't kill people. There you go.

I'm smart enough to put a full stop at the end of a sentence.

lol

You said O Reilly was shouting over Dawkins,

No I did not. Stop quote mining.

At 6/21/09 11:38 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Actually he didn't. Every time he went into an explanation O'Reilly interrupted him and swayed the discussion to something else.

Why don't you go actually watch the video and count the times when Bill interrupts Dawkin's.

Brick-top vs Brick-top. Who will come out the victor?

I said his tactic (I wasn't specific on what interview) was to progressively get louder and interrupt. I've shown he's done both.

But not on the Dawkins video, which is what you claimed he did.

Obviously you were trying to make the extrapolation that he did it there, so that must be "his tactic". Except he didn't use that tactic against Dawkins. So you're wrong.

Actually he did interrupt him. I've already stated this and we've already gone through some others you've mentioned in this reply.

You really have to pick a side here. Is it Bill O Reilly's tactic to consistently interrupt guests and shout over them or not?

No matter what you believe though, he clearly wasn't shouting over Dawkins, so there was no point in linking to that irrelevant video with him yelling at that woman over abortion. It doesn't prove he did it with Dawkins. It just doesn't. They're two completely different videos.

It's okay don't read it too fast you might hurt yourself

With your typing skills I'll need a translator.

If you're going to insult me, at least throw something that makes sense.

So you're admitting that it was O Reilly's tactic to use shouting in the one unrelated video which had nothing to do with Dawkins, but he doesn't do it continuously. Okay. I accept your apology.

Okay troll before you quote mine and straw mine let me clarify a few things.

1. The definition of the word 'tactic' does not state it needs to be used continuously.

You said "tactics", which is plural.

2. I never mentioned the Dawkins interview. You did.

LIES. LYING LIAR WHO LIES TO COVER UP HIS LIES. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DAWKINS THIS WHOLE TIME. YOU EVEN MENTIONED DAWKINS IN THIS SAME POST. WTF MAN DO YOU PROOFREAD?

3. He did interrupt Dawkins many times in the interview.

Such as never. Also, you just said you never mentioned the Dawkins video, point #3 details you mentioning the Dawkins video.

4. Bill has on many occasions (the video I posted was from more than one interview) interrupted, shouted, shown aggression etc.

Yeah, just not on the Dawkins video.

6. You have not proven any of your assertions or arguments. You didn't even bother to check the definition of the word.

lol

Your own quote applies to you more than it does to me:
"You heard things that weren't actually said"

Hahahahahahha

This is a question for anyone on the forums. Is this guy a troll? If he is, I'm wasting my time and I don't want to throw away anymore just to make someone jizz in their pants when they think they're annoying someone.

You're just not as intelligent as me. It's okay though, it's not your fault, you didn't know you were playing with one of the big boys. Now leave me and aive to have an intelligent discussion.

And btw, it doesn't help yourself when you contradict yourself in your own post.

"He interrupted Dawkins in the Dawkins vid."

"I never mentioned the Dawkins video. You did."

lolk

At 6/26/09 12:07 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/24/09 09:27 PM, Grammer wrote: You can't historical evidence your opinion.

In this case, yes, yes I can. Because based on my own education on history, and Stalin in particular, I have formed the opinion that he did not try to single out religious people for extermination (as you seemed to suggest to these eyes) simply because they were religious, or solely because of it.

Okok. Let's not debate history. My point is, if Stalin was religious, which he wasn't, then he wouldn't have targeted religious persons. My point has been from the beginning concerning Stalin, that while he probably would have still killed people, he actively sought out the destruction of religion. Whether for religious or political reasons, that's what he did, and that's beyond dispute.

Also venomking, if you're handing out magical worlds where people in them are always right, can I please have one? They sound nifty!!!! :)

No, let's stay in my magical world. I like it here. We get free cocoa.

At 6/26/09 12:22 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 6/24/09 07:21 PM, Grammer wrote: No, those were the words you heard, not what was actually said.

Can you prove that?

What the fuck are you talking about. This isn't a fact to prove. You heard things that weren't actually said in the debate.

I've read The Bible. You haven't. You're wrong. The Bible says killing is wrong. Just trust me.

I've got a copy of the bible and I've read all the way through it.

Congratz

In the Bible it promotes murder in the sections of the Old Testament.

Now before you go on and say "These rules don't apply" like most do, read exodus first. There's something magical in there.

These rules don't apply

I said it anyways to spite you

I never said he does it continuously. I said it was his tactic.

ASDFGHJK;ZXCVBNM,.WETYUO

SAME THING YOU RETARD

The term retard doesn't inherently refer to intelligence or mental state.

I care

I love it when people use the term. It only shows their stupidity and their understanding of simplistic words.

Oh man you're so smart

YOU USE TACTICS CONTINUOUSLY. THATS WHAT MAKES THEM TACTICS. HOLY SHIT ARE YOU STUPID?

No you don't. Once again, you don't know the definition of simplistic words. A tactic is a plan or procedure generally something which has a personal goal.

You're an idiot. You said O Reilly was shouting over Dawkins, and to prove this, you provided an unrelated video of his shouting over someone completely different. Obviously you were trying to make the extrapolation that he did it there, so that must be "his tactic". Except he didn't use that tactic against Dawkins. So you're wrong.

It's okay don't read it too fast you might hurt yourself

If this was a tactic, then I'd have to do it every single day. But oh wait, it's not continuous. The definition doesn't state it has to be continuous.

So you're admitting that it was O Reilly's tactic to use shouting in the one unrelated video which had nothing to do with Dawkins, but he doesn't do it continuously. Okay. I accept your apology.

At 6/25/09 07:20 PM, Grammer wrote: Who the fuck is Farah Faucet

Never mind, I just lost my ability to care

Who the fuck is Farah Faucet

At 6/25/09 07:02 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: hahahaha Michael is dead good riddance.SOURCY!!

;~;

At 6/24/09 11:13 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: But yeah let's pretend we are in this magical world where you are always right.

Okay