3,109 Forum Posts by "JakeHero"
At 8/16/07 06:05 PM, Attactivist wrote: I'm not saying that the aztec or mayans had any special powers, they just didn't deserve to be treated the way they were. They were still an advanced society regardless, and more then the blood thirsty "satan worshipers" that EWTN make then out to be.
Considering the Chinese and Europeans were light years more advanced, I think it's pretty foolish to try and compare them in terms of....well.....advancement.
At 8/17/07 06:09 AM, AapoJoki wrote:At 8/17/07 06:04 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Question: Has there been any evidence to suggest that Chavez has utilised his power to fix elections?Venezuelan elections have been repeatedly monitored by international observers, but so far nothing has come out to suggest they were rigged.
At 8/16/07 01:31 PM, DubleG wrote: If the Mayans were still here they would be able to warn us of natural disasters and they will be able to verify if 2012 really is the end of the world or just the end of I dunno maybe oil or something else.
You're an idiot. As another user so eloquently put it, if the mayans weren't able to see their own destruction, what the hell makes you think their insight as any credibility? You sound just like one of these angsty-pagan assholes on the AOL messageboard.
At 8/14/07 11:13 PM, damionford wrote: B. Dosen't Threaten or Obscenley Offend Somone
Thw first part is correct, but if you believe the second half then you really don't know jackshit.
My favorite democrat, Zell Miller, but since he doesn't abhere to ideas of quasi-socialism he'll never get any nomination.
If the colleges draw public funds to finance then someone could take them to court over these speech codes since they're not entirely private entities, but we'll leave it to leftwingers go go after groups for whom they simple disagree with.
boy scouts of america
At 8/13/07 08:50 PM, animehater wrote:At 8/13/07 08:45 PM, JakeHero wrote: After taking a deathclock test, it said I'd die by the age of 48 of lung cancer. Does that make me a manly man?But what if you got the lung cancer at 46?
Than that would be chain smoking unfiltered camels.
At 8/12/07 11:12 PM, Empanado wrote:At 8/12/07 10:30 PM, Memorize wrote: I can't even smoke a cigarette. It disgusts me.Hahaha, pussy. A man who doesn't have lung cancer by the time he's 45 isn't a man at all.
After taking a deathclock test, it said I'd die by the age of 48 of lung cancer. Does that make me a manly man?
Yeah, what you listed is called eugenics, and I highly doubt the government would fund research into it. Eugenics may be truly feasible and not just a pseudoscience, but I doubt any government official or agency that values their budget will look into it.
Just a funny thing I would like to add, people are willing to accept different breeds of dogs have innate characteristics, but when someone tries to say the same for humans they're branded as racists and charlettons.
I myself am agnostic when it comes to whether or not eugenics is the real deal, but I think it's definitely worth looking into.
Thank God America values freedom of speech..........even if the other industrial countries have forgotten the concept.
I believe homosexuality is a birth defect or chromosome mutation such as down syndrome.
At 8/12/07 01:52 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: You're saying because service A is good; that service's B,c,d,e and future services F-z will be just as good.
Note the sarcasm in my post.
At 8/12/07 01:09 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Yeah, because if something is publically funded, it's automatically inefficient.
Well, I wasn't aiming to give off that idea, but in most cases privatize services trumps universal ones. This will apply to education and healthcare.
All the police and fire departments must be doing a horribly bad job all over America then, not to mention road maintenance services etc. Oh, and the US Army, of course! They must be really weak and have only obsolete technology and equipment, considering they're funded with tax money.
The problem with your sarcasm is that there isn't a privatized polce, fire department, and army to contrast with the public ones. I never said everything universal would be shitty, just mediocre to privatized services.
Fuck yeah, man. Only a conservative idiot would be against Nationalized Healthcare. I mean, it's not like our nationalized education system has ever given off doubts about the effectiveness of universal services.
At 8/10/07 09:44 AM, Ravariel wrote: I mean, isn't the media already left-wing commie hippes? How can a doctrine that's supposed to create more conservative POVs be a "liberal agenda"?
The Fairness Doctrine would only apply to talk radio, and for some reason, cable news and the internet would be exempt from it.
At 8/1/07 12:18 AM, plagueofthings wrote: As an American whose country commits the same kinds of human rights violations,
Yeah, over a hundred years ago.
and incidentally was also founded by stealing land, I feel somewhat betrayed by my supposed democratic government.
That's no good, but there's a difference. Men back then weren't as compassionate as they are today, jumbled with the white supremist attitude, mingled with manifest destiny, they viewed the indians as little more than animals. I'm pretty sure if they were as.......racially enlightened today such attrocities would never take place.
Plus, the US government has taken many strides to reimburst the Indians for the crimes of the past(though it would never compensate completely) they're granted a whole lot of tax status and protection that many whites today do not gain. Fuck, contrast the sissified attitude of white males and the perserved tradition of indian men and the answer will be pretty clear who got shafted in the end.
In a free society, people aren't obligated to agree with their government.
Yes. Israel has this.
The reason are government is such a target for foreign media, it's because they are doing terrible things in the world.
Yeah, our government trying to kill homicidal terrorists, disposing of genocidal dictators, freeing countries, providing aid to developing nations, protecting most of the civilized world, etc. How dare us!
That's why the violence will never end.
So you'd rather Israel turn over and allow terrorists and islamofascists to have free-reign and do what they wish because it might upset the sensibilities of other extremists?
Palestine thinks it's under occupation, which they kinda are,
Which, they are dreadfully wrong. The land was granted to Israel by various European governments, who were previously the legal owners.
but it's been so long that maybe they should just give up. If they don't, they will likely face destruction at the hands of the Israeli military.
Agreed.
Unless Iran gets involved, which they probably will.
Iran is already involved. They're using superfluge to work behind the scenes and give aid to various militant sects such as Hezbollah.
Is the US dumb enough to get involved in yet another military conflict? There are so many possible ways that this conflict will end.
Um, I don't think you can reason with people willing to strap bombs to the chest of their kids. It sucks, but these people DO NOT understand negotiation. The only language they are fluent in is power, much to the chagrin of hippies.
And who decides if it's reasonable?
The sovereign nation itself. I would say the US doesn't listen to foreign resolution that teathers its hands together.
Usually when the international community has a problem with a nation, it's because that nation is doing something wrong. Usually.
I would think it'd be more accurate to say: usually when the international community has a problem with a nation, it's because that nation did something in the past wrong and has turned into an anti-(insert nationality) mentality.
But I didn't condemn them.If they want to live in a theocracy, that's their business.Israel is actually the most democratic nation in that region of the world, but hey, if you want to condemn a nation for its theocracy then Iran's fair game.
You claimed Israel lived in a theocracy, outright misinformation, but still said nonetheless. So I imagine if you can criticize a nation for a genuine theocracy it should be Iran.
I just expressed my personal distaste for religion in my government. I think it leads to violence, and it's not MY religion. I don't know what it feels like to have state impose theology that I already believe. To me, theocracy =/= religious freedom.
Which........Israel doesn't have. Here's a good way to tell whether or not a government is a theocracy, if any competing religions are oppressed and its disciples executed. Don't see hindus lined up in the streets of Israel and shot in the head, but I can't say this for some of Israel's neighbors.
Iran and Israel have so much in common. They should be friends.
Let's have a quick comparison.
Israel has toleration of gentiles and even professors of the Islamic faith. In Iran they'll kill you if you do not belong to same Islamic sect as the country, even if you're a fellow muslim all the same.
Israel provides aid to refugees, even if they're foreign. Iran, well I don't want to know what Iran does to refugees of enemy nations.
Israel streams western cartoons, teaching their kids the simple lessons of life. Iran streams cartoons of suicide bombers, preparing them for matyrdom.
In Israel women are given rights. In Iran a woman may be stoned/and are stoned frequently for so much as displeasing the male of the house.
Israel uses the same coercive interrogation techniques implimented by British Intelligence. Iran's interrogators maintain the right to rip someone's nipples off with chicken wire.
Israel treats its prisoner in the same fashion as the US military, whereas Iran is notorious for massacring thousands of political prisoners.
The list goes on and on, but other than that you're correct. Iran and Israel are truly carbon copies.
What does anti-semitism have to do with not wanting your land stolen?
I'm saying if you don't think Israel has a right to exist than you're an anti-semite that hasn't come out in the open yet.
I'm sure after decades of oppression and violence, the Palestinian people have developed some rabid anti-semitism. If Israel was run by the Druze, there would probably be a lot of anti-Druze sentiment in the middle east.
"Decades of oppression and violence?" Since you seem to know so much maybe you could tell me when the last Palestian Holocaust was? Or perhaps the great Arab Purge? I must of fallen asleep in history class, but perhaps you could enlighten me and tell me where the Jewish slavers bought the Palestians from?
That's like comparing red apples to slightly less red apples. They all feed off the assholery of each other. We assholes have to stick together.
Then that's good. If you can draw such a clear conclusion could you tell me who are the ripe apples and who are the less red apples?
I'd rather live in a nation whose foreign policy doesn't involve laps. Oh well. I can always dream.
Welcome to politics and diplomacy. Unfortunately, if you want to get things done on an international level you gotta lick boot. It's not so easy as asking some country to do something and them getting on it right away.
At 7/31/07 05:56 PM, Exblade wrote: ah i remember that i used to think you were the dumbest most ignorant Conserative ever.
I ge that alot. Sometimes I'm serious, sometimes I'm over the line.
now since im more relaxed and thinking straight, i really dont care what you say. what im technically saying is that im calling a Truce and starting a New beggining, so Truce?
Sure, I'm a reasonable man, I'd like to believe. I accept.
At 7/31/07 04:28 PM, Grammer wrote: I guess Bush is to blame for the dip in the Asian economy, too.
No it isn't, but alot of american ignorant of economics would naturally associate how good or bad things are going with the President. The media knows this mentality and constantly bombarded the masses with positivity during the Clinton years(except when the case is so large it simply can't be ignored) and constant negativity during the Bush years. I haven't heard MSNBC, CNN or PBS news pickup on how high the stock market has climbed.
Then again, maybe I'm just paranoid.
Anyone remember the unending stories of the economic boom during the 90s?
At 7/31/07 04:14 PM, zambota wrote:At 7/31/07 04:09 PM, JakeHero wrote: My personal opinion, we should take care of both Iraq and Darfur.I'm not sure if we can actually pull that off.
Most likely we can't, but at the time being we should fix one of the problems than, if possible, the other.
At 7/31/07 03:56 PM, plagueofthings wrote: Israel treats the world pretty badly.
I'd say the Israelies treat the Palestinians like shit, but Israel catches a lot of shit for the most superfluous of matters. As an american, I sympathize with that since we too are tha target of foreign medias.
But it's okay to commit all kinds of human rights violations, as long as you slap the "terrorist" label on them first.
As I said in another thread it's bullshit to bulldoze arabic settlements, but Israel maintains the right to assinate or exponge any person or groups that seek its immediate destruction.
International law only applies if you want it to.
International law only applies if it's reasonable.
I don't really care, it's not like I live there.
Well maybe you should be more empathetic for their plight. They're most likely the most hated nation on the earth, with the US at a close second.
If they want to live in a theocracy, that's their business.
Israel is actually the most democratic nation in that region of the world, but hey, if you want to condemn a nation for its theocracy then Iran's fair game.
I don't like being called anti-Semitic just because I think Israel takes self-defense too far,
I don't think anyone on the BBS is a member of the Anti-Defamation League, so we won't label you as such without reason.
but apparently if you don't think Israel has the right to do whatever it pleases, you're Adolf Hitler.
No, if you don't think Israel has a right to exist then you're a closet anti-semite, in my book.
Israel is run by a bunch of assholes,
Who are bigger assholes in your mind, the people who run Israel or the people who run Syria, Iran, and Pakistan?
and Condoleeza Rice is a dirty dirty whore. At this very moment she's probably sucking Olmert's...never mind.
I'd rather have Condoleeza being the lapdog of Israel than being the lapdog of North Korea, China, and the Phillipines like the previous administration was.
My personal opinion, we should take care of both Iraq and Darfur.
At 7/31/07 02:12 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Except that that's a logical fallacy, since either way the way you phrased it leads to "hypocrisy".
Oh shits no. Me pointing out any kind of hypocrisy is a big no-no, humor or not.
Reverse your statement, and you'll see how stupid it is either way.
As I said, hypocrisy exists on both sides. The point of this thread is pointing out the hypocrisy on the left.
Except that nothing in leftist philosophy calls for the banning of free speech. Oops.
What's the title of this thread again? Oh yeah, "Leftist Hypocrisy" and not hypocrisy of liberal philosophy. I find it funny liberals champion free-speech for radical islamofascists, yet impliment speech codes to stiffle the expression of varying view points, typically ones from righties.
The Patriot Act has nothing to do with fire-arms. You're an idiot.
My point was some liberals believe that the government disarming its citizens is reasonable whereas the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. I'm against the Patriot Act or certain exerpts from it, but feel that liberals shouldn't have such a double-standard on what and isn't unconstitutional.
Of course, every single liberal that's ever lived is rich, and only wants a tax increase for everyone ELSE.
With much regret, I say that alot of them perform tax sheltering, I'm pretty sure they're some that don't try and bullshit everyone, though.
How does being pro-abortion but anti-private-social-security make you a hypocrite?
I'll answer this question with another question: do you believe the people have a right to privacy and autonomy from the government?
Except that leftist masses never claimed Saddam shouldn't be tried.
Actually, George Galloway and his ilk believed that Saddam should never have been brought to trial.
Leftists don't claim that the terrorists where justified,
You wouldn't believe how many prominent leftwingers came out said 9/11 was a justified attack because of America's hegemony and the insurgents are freedom fighters.
but yes, Israeli terrorists and mass murderers are fucking scum.
Agreed, but they still maintain a right to defend themselves in my book. I don't support bulldozing Palestinian settlements.
Oops! Time Magazine shows that the majority of liberals are Christians.
Here I am poking fun at the Rosie O'Donnel fringe of the leftwing movement that believe fundamentalist christians are as big or a bigger threat than the guys that want to shoot you for having too short of a beard.
One person being innocent of a crime doesn't mean everyone else is.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this statement so I'll let you elaborate on it further.
Nice to know that you support pedophiles, though.
No, I think pedophiles should be castrated, but I do find it odd that leftwingers are quick to condemn Foley for his crime and give Ted Kennedy a free pass for killing a woman. I believe you can get serious jail-time for manslaughter.
Also good to know that you're pro-lynching-black-people.
Did I say the KKK are good? They're both equally bad in my book, but for some reason liberals believe the black panthers are somehow more justified in their desire for a violent otherthrow and extermination of the white race.
Yes, many people tend to find lying about a blow-job a TAD worse then treason. Oh, and theres a difference between "Impeach" and "Indict".
Both lied before a grand jury, didn't they?
The difference is that Rush Limbaugh is not only an idiot like Bill Maher, he's also cruel.
Just stop right there. The point isn't who's a more cruel commentator, the point is they're both unfunny, idiotic chumps. You know what, from now on I'm just going to say it's a case of "lds."
The difference being that Air America actively admits that it's leftist,
Yet it's treated with credibility in leftwing circles for its liberal leaning.....whereas Fox is spurned for its conservative leaning.
they don't desperately try and grasp to the notion that their in the middle. The other difference is that Air America doesn't keep claiming George Bush to be a mass murderer, a la Fox.
I don't recall Fox voicing the opinion George Bush is a mass murderer, but I do recall a commentator on Air America saying Bush should be assasinated.
Glad to know that you really, REALLY like lynching black people.
So I support lynching because I compare two bigots with eachother?
Oh, and Ted Turners not a bigot. He's just too fucking insane to have any idea what he's saying.
No, Ted Turner's a pretty prejudiced asshole just like David Duke.
Actually, I've never seen a liberal say that. But feel free to name an example.
It's actually more an unwritten law. When Jesse Jackson came out and called New York "heimy town" it didn't render so much as a peep from the leftwing personalities, but when Michael Richards when out on his tirade, oh shit, better look out.
Ah. And here you show stupidity by mixing "Liberal" with "Socialist".
So you don't consider socialism a leftwing ideology?
The difference is that Bill Clinton just pussies out of his American duties. George Bush pussies out,
How could Bush pussied out when he already served in the military?
but in the process screws some deserving Marine out of a much vied for position on the Air National Guard.
Hm, I don't remember marcines being enlisted in an army branch.
Ok, how much do you give to charity. Let's mach each other up; what percent of your time and money do you give to charity?
I've actually been giving some money to the Christian Children Fund after fli suggested that the group was a "God sent." Though I haven't sponsored a specific child yet.
Because all situations are exactly the same.
I just find it funny liberals are willing to support every military campaign raged by Clinton and Wesley Clark, but condemn the two Bush waged(even though the second one is understandable).
Michael savage isn't mean-spirited, he's just stupid and frequently incorrect.
I don't listen to Michael Savage much, partially because I don't think political parties need their jesters, but he holds a Ph.D and masters degree in Botany and nutritional science, hardly what I'd call a stupid person.
At least Rhodes can get some facts correct every once in a while.
Randi Rhodes actually frequently lies on the radio.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlt1ZEflX bA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dip65yfmI KE
At 7/30/07 02:16 PM, tony4moroney wrote:At 7/30/07 01:55 PM, JakeHero wrote: whingelol
Another post later.
your points fail miserably
i loved this one though;
'40 year old aol user looking for underrage pussy'
I love how you try and give off the air of apathy to cover her up your enability to counter and now you're butthurt once more. You're indeed a pitiful little human-being.
and nope you still didn't address the issue you just started throwing feces at me again for your emotional problems.
It's pretty bad you've missed so many paragraphs so easily where it wasn't just a personal attack.
At 7/30/07 02:38 PM, tony4moroney wrote:At 7/30/07 02:23 PM, Terrorize wrote:And your failing to answer anything. Dodge much? Looks like it. I also love how your not taking up on his offer to prove him wrong. Oh well I guess 'you' can't stamp everything as a "Straw-Man."uh ok then what was that again?
i called hypocrisy on his side for claiming bush was a war hero for his servitude in the armed forces
I never, ever said Bush was a war hero, you imbecile. Now who's using the straw-man?
whereas kerry was ill-deserving of any accolades.
I implied one of them was ill-deserved since it was self-inflicted.
now whilst kerry actually served in the armed forces and was deployed to vietnam bush left before his deployment.
You really suffer from reading comprehension problems if you can confuse my posts with declaring Bush as a war hero.
happy?
Quite
you do recognize i came across this thread before and i didnt give a rats ass right?
You actually posted in this thread once, before idiot number #2 decided to post.
maybe if you didnt start slinging quasi-racist remarks at another user i'd have been fine with everything. and dont deny it.
Right because I was advocating the supremacy of one race over another. So no, you're relying on one of the core liberal strategy of debate; claim the opponent has racial undertones to try and get emotional support from otherwise irrational viewers.
"maybe we should lynch your ass" - jakehero
It would be racist, if the user was black and I advocated him being hung for that, but if you look at Jizzle's profile it clearly shows HE"S white. Gtfo, you dumbshit, you have failed to prove anything.
and you realize why im not going to give a comprehensive rebuttal right?
Yeah, I do. It's because you lack any rebuttal. When I call you out on your bullshit strategy of debate you know it's true, and there's no way you can continue debated because you've been forced into a situation where you have to clarify your previous statements.
because that would mean according to you im 'emotionally afflicted' by your second-rate attempt at satire.
You seem to be emotionally affected by this board.
and what the fuck is the point of refuting an imbecile?
That is actually the best and only point you've ever made. I really don't know why I'm here educating morons like you.
now this is long overdue so uhh. bye.
Slink away.
At 7/30/07 10:41 AM, JakeHero wrote:nice retortAt 7/29/07 07:47 AM, tony4moroney wrote: Third grade called and they want their rhetorical sarcasm back.Then why are you still holding out on them?
I know. It was such a nice retort you have nothing witty to counter with.
point it out. yeah i thought so.
Then you really have no right to prattle on about racism and whatnot.
already did. seems elementary comprehension skills were something you didnt pick up.
Damit, Tony, you're really making this easy for me. I'm going to call you again on your bullshit and say you never even made the point. The reason you won't now is because you realize I never said anything remotely racist. So now you're trying to weasel out of it again by pretending it has already been made.
i beg to differ, im sure your arrogant intolerance has been readily apparent in your steadfast attempts to cut down corrections in an unconvincing, pathetic manner.
No it isn't. You just proved to everyone once more you have no goddamn idea of the definitions of the words you're regurgitating.
has he responded yet?
No, but you didn't give him enough time in the first place.
i came across the thread i responded, truly just have a sulk.
No, you've posted in thread previously.
since when was this a partisan problem?
Man you can't fucking read well?
i thought it would be transparently obvious even to a retard, but from observing you its still not quite apparent enough. don't believe me?
walk up to an african-american and say it to his face. yeah i thought so.
I guess I'll have to dumb this down for you. Words are just sounds with added meaning. A word is only as powerful as people want it to be. To me the power behind any racist term is equally deplorable. To a liberal, some racial words are worse than others simply because of the person speaking it. A liberal cries racism when a white person calls a black person the N-word, but calls it culture when one black person calls another the same word. If your objection to the N-word is the history then why is it leftwingers don't care about it when spoken by blacks?
At 7/30/07 11:42 AM, tony4moroney wrote: tell that to an african-american.
I'll be sure to do that.
again not a liberal issue.
What I've been pointing out is that liberalis believe some minorities deserve special treatment at the expense of others. This includes our previous discourse.
it just seems conservatives like yourself seem to lack empathy or understanding in your resolve to make things 'right'.
I would suck to be a slave. Seperated from your family and kinsmen, I just don't see how either honkey or the n-word is worse than the other since both imply one race is inferior/superior.
geez i guess history really blew over your head didnt it? lol
No, it's just your logical fallacy of appeal to emotion didn't stun me.
The history is no where near the same you dumb shit.
tell that to an african-american. apparently being a fuckwit is your priority and then you suggest its somehow a partisan issue... ok? lol
You seem to let alot escape you.
have a look at what you wrote and youll understand why i suggested it was a paraphrase.
And this is why I was mocking you for your unoriginality for taking my previous line.
ok sure thing buddy keep telling yourself that
I don't need to tell myself anything when you and I very well know you're letting this whole fiasco get to you.
no, its that your incapable of retorting to a multitude of corrections.
Umm, you haven't corrected anything. All you've done is go "Not-uh! you're ignorant!"
you muster up a pathetic counter-point only to be cut down and then what do you resort to?
Your whole argument consists of making up broad statements and plastering it to avoid actually going into depth to disprove something and then when someone does get specific you continue to use the same strategy. It's amusing, actually. Your whole posts wreak of the angry 40 year old AOL user that is currently unemployed and goes around looking for underage pussy.
you tell them to shut up and that this is all a joke.
If you knew how to read and referred to the other pages I've been consistently telling other people this thread is intended for humor, infact I even say so in the disclaimer. You really need to get your head out of your ass and your eyes on a computer screen.
seems youre the idiot that gets a little too carried away.
And it seems you missed the smiley after that one, small post.
ok point it out to me, where did i even suggest there was no such thing as a liberal hypocrisy?
"your entire thread is a failure because it was made by a failure on the failed premise of declaring liberals hypocrites"
yeah exactly nothing right? you just like pulling that crap out of your overweight ass.
Why are you thinking about me pulling stuff out of my ass, gaymuch?
hey i thought this thread was all about labels. and no that would be right.
No, it's about the lolz. But hey, you can use labels if you use them correctly. I'm just pointing out you don't know the definition of a neocon because you broadly tried to brand me with the label.
in reference to your thread maybe? damn you really do fail at reading.
Man you're so goddamn pathetic. You post some stupidass comment, so I ask you a question wanting a serious answer, when you can't answer you tell me I'm using a straw-man, then when I point out what a straw-man is, and thus you using the term wrong, you try and weasel out of it by saying it's in reference to the thread? You really need to grow some balls and manup to your shitty word-play.
'reinforcing the stereotype that liberals are all labels' --> original ill give you that lol.
And I didn't even have to copy others. :)
i guess the point of that response shot right over your head again
And you seem to be keep missing it. There's hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. I'm pointing it out from the left while you're doing it to the right. I made this thread to point out leftist hypocrisy.
cool, is it a giuliani lisp?
No, Mike Tyson.
mmm definitely a karl marxist. what is that your advanced way of calling me a commie? lol.
It's actually my way of being facetious since you like to call others fascist and racists.
damn those loony-far leftist commies. what other soundbites can we fit into this? theyre terrorist supporters. they hate freedom. they hate our love for women. they dont want us to spread democracy. they dont support the troops. lol enough sustinence for your asinine two-bit political perspective?
You're forgetting they're corporate bushwahs, haters of women's rights, racists, chauvinists, homophobes, they want to kill mother nature, they hate the poor, and are bloodthirsty despots!
Could you elaborate on that?im not going back again to cut and paste. i guess youd miss it unless it shot you in the face right? youd think it was a duck otherwise?
I'm asking you to elaborate on it because I don't think you ever made the point and were using your strategy of broad statements I spoke of earlier. But now your chance to prove me wrong. Tony, you have the floor!
At 7/29/07 07:47 AM, tony4moroney wrote: Third grade called and they want their rhetorical sarcasm back.
Then why are you still holding out on them?
lol im not the one that automatically assumed islam and muslims were inherently evil because of a couple of crazies,
No, but you assume to think christians all hate atheist or are uneducated, this lumps you in as the ttypical bigot.
im not the one making racist remarks here.
And could you point out any racist statements? No, you can't. That's how utterly pitiful you are.
Its ironic that you call be a bigot when this entire thread is a Straw-man feel good thread to stroke your ego.
I think you need to look up the definition of "bigot" because hubris is not synonymous with it.
He hasn't responded,
You only gave him a few hours before you decided to pelt me with your bullshit in his stead.
I came across the thread, you're the one putting forth the suggestion perhaps you should justify your beliefs as opposed to passing the buck.
Words have as much power as people give them. I find it funny liberals claim to champion "racial-equality" while claiming one racial slur is worst than the other.
Uh no. I'm pretty sure some delinquent idiots calling people cracker today isn't the equivalent to the history of calling people N-R,
And when were these days, over a hundred years ago? Damn, and people say conservatives are too fixated upon the past.
lynching them,
So....you don't think blacks hung eachother?
enslaving them,
So you don't think African tribes sold captured men to slavers?
raping them et. al.
And blacks have raped whites, what's your point?
The history is no where near the same you dumb shit.
And that's just what it is, history. Yet liberals seem to be under the impression that certain minorities deserve more protection at te expense of others. That's what this double-standard is. A black person can get away with calling a white person a honkey, but as soon as a white person calls a black person the equivalent racial slur it's a travesty. It's utter hypocrisy and idiocy.
'look at me I think I can justify stupid suggestions by passing the buck, the moment someone questions me my entire argument becomes fallible (you)'
I've never heard that chiding manner before. And here I was thinking you were a lame-ass.
Nope, but its funny how truly idiotic you are.
It's funny because you're getting upset over what people say over the net.
You haven't discredited shit or even presented a decent rebuttal,
No dipshit, I haven't even been trying to sincerely disspell liberal delusion in this particular thread. Why? Because it's satire, a concept your immense IQ of 72 can't wrap around. If you refer over the pages you'll see this entire thing was done in good humor. But you seem to be bleeding out the cooch about it.
your entire thread is a failure because it was made by a failure on the failed premise of declaring liberals hypocrites
I know you're too moronic to realize when to give it a rest, but I don't think you want to try and argue against the fact of liberal hypocrisy. So you're going to sit here and tell me there's no such thing? But hey, you've piqued my interest, I'll give you another chance to spell out the premise of my thread when you failed the first time.
when its quite apparent NeoConservatives like yourself are just inherently inferior.
I don't think you realize what a neocon is, actually. Seriously, quit getting your soundbites from Dailykos and Moveon.org and voice your own opinion like a good little pinko. :)
Straw-Man arguments, look it up sometime.
Straw-man is misrepresenting an argument. Since when is asking a question attempting to misrepresent your argument? Now you're starting to reinforce the stereotype liberals are all labels.
What about people that feel its right to punish Saddam Hussein for the Kurd massacre but overlook the fact that it was Reagan who sold him all those weapons illegally to profiteer full well knowing he was funding murders. The same people that look at Reagan as a the epitome of modern conservatism (rightfully).
What about people that say nuclear weapons should be dismantled, but applaud Clinton when he gives the technology to the Chinese and other Marxist countries?
Nope, fanatical would fit you well.
I can't help but think you would speak that in a lisp.
Ignorant would be an appropriate label as well.
It would be a great label for yourself. Considering you represent the loony fringe of the left-of-karl marx wing of liberalism.
Tell that to all the crazies that still think he's a great president.
Just be sure to tell the same to all the crazies that think Fidel Castro is a great leader.
Still an idiotic hypocrisy on your behalf
Could you elaborate on that?
At 7/29/07 04:22 AM, tony4moroney wrote: Hmm interesting.. it wreaked of malice
Look at me, the pseudointellectual that likes to feign intelligence(You).
and racist overtones.
This is rich coming from the bigot.
Rather, explain to us why they're both equally inappropriate.
They're both racial slurs, you imbecile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honkey By the way, I challenged this fella to prove to me how the n-word is any worse than the latter, so why are you asking me to do the opposite when he hasn't even made his case yet?
As he said history.
There are negative connotations associated with the N-word because of the history of slavery and murder and how this was a condescending label during those times.
No, that's not what he meant. He simply used it at the end of the post just like every other douchebag when they have nothing else to say/prove. And you don't think "cracker" has negative meanings and history behind it? Is thinking that certain ethnicities deserve more protection than others a symptom of liberalism?
It seems you're an idiot,
It seems to me I'm getting under your skin, which is an automatic win for me.
it was funny how you used limbaugh to point out a leftist hypocrisy as well.
.....but you don't deny that it's a case of leftist hypocrisy?
What next?
You shutting the fuck up, I hope. :) Your posts exude an amount of dumbshittery I can't take in at a single time.
All your senators that cry wolf at legalization of prostitution and then get caught with their pants down?
What about asshole presidents that push for the punishment of people that commit sexual harrassment, yet take their employees up to their hotel room and whip out their cock?
What about the idiots that think Bush is a benevolent saint
No one believes that. Conservatives tend not to be as fanatical about politicians representing them.
whereas Kerry was ill-deserving of his war accolades.
One of those wounds was self-inflicted, actually.
Funny considering Bush sulked and ran away from the army when it was his due time to serve.
You just keep proving me over and over. I don't want this thread to degrade into the Bush topic, but I can't let such misinformation from a misinformed fool sully my page. Bush served two years in the Army National Guard, aerial unit for a couple of years, and was granted an honorable discharge two years before Vietnam was even declared. So you're telling me you'd want him to enlist a second time just to pass your arbitrary litmus test(which for some reason never applied to Clinton)?
Tell you what, wait until this previous poster is thoroughly disproven, then I'll gladly take on any further posts you'd wish to lodge at the expense of other's IQs.
At 7/28/07 08:59 AM, Jizzlebang wrote: Jake, you are seriously buttfuck retarded
Shouldn't your precious DNC come and lynch you for being politically incorrect, asshole?
if don't see the difference between honkey and the N-word.
Okay, explain to me how one or the other is any worse.
So shut up and read a fucking history book.
It seems you need to get a new put-down, considering that wasn't inappropriate in any context in the current discussion. But hey, I guess that's all I can expect from third graders.
At 7/27/07 06:58 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: So since it's not named "right wing hypocrisy," that means im not allowed to point out right wing hypocrisy?
You can talk about right wing hypocrisy, but that would be the equivalent of talking about movies in a thread about seal clubbing.
Weak....
If you think so perhaps you shouldn't be clogging up my topic.
