13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 1/9/11 09:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Would you be saying that if he had shpot a Republican and a conservative judge? Doubtful.
One of his favorite books was the Communist Manifesto, was seen in a video burning the American flag, and was described by a fellow student as "ardently left wing."
And btw, the Judge was a conservative and the Democrat a deficit hawk who supports gun rights.
So... way to go, moron.
At 12/28/10 04:43 PM, RentallyMetarded wrote: I find it funny that people actually get their info from Fox news LOL
I find it funny that you still post in the politics section.
You have more of an obsession with fox news than Chris Matthews does with Obama's nut sack.
At 12/19/10 04:58 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
People were mobilized from all over the entire country. So, it wasn't just citizens of New York that showed up there. Nor, does the argument hold much water in a united set of states. This is something the Federal government could do.
But has no obligation too.
And even if people were pulled from all over the country, you can't tell me they ALL got there as the towers fell and ALL suffered from the heavy, thick debris.
Only emergency care where you are literally at the point of death, at the point at which it is most expensive and least effective.
Hardly, I was given care in an emergency room several times in Arizona and wasn't even near the point of death.
Same applies with them.
You get diagnosed with cancer? Sucks to be you. Come back when you can barely breath, we'll hook you up to a machine until you pass and charge the state. Heart disease? When you have a heart attack, come see me.
That's not how it works.
You've been buying into too many politician's horror stories.
Or would you like me to bring up examples of how people have died or lost use of eye sight or hearing because a country's single payer system told them they were "over their limit"?
That's a crock of shit. Not having enough money means not having access. Anything else is mincing words.
40 million are without Health insurance in a country of 300 million.
Another 20-30 million are either:
1) financially capable of affording health insurance, but they don't want to pay the huge costs.
or
2) Eligible for medicaid/medicare, but either don't know if they are eligible or don't know how to file the paper work.
Then there's another few million who are only without health insurance because of being in a job transition (averaging 6 - 8 months).
When it all comes down to it, there's very well less than 10 million people in a nation of over 300 million who actually can't afford it.
So... you're an idiot.
At 12/19/10 11:32 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Now of course, single payer could just take care of all of this. But in our broken american system, closing a tax loop hole for underpaying corporate america and giving these guys benefits is just the right thing to do.
You do realize it would be illegal in the US for them to be turned away from medical help, right?
Everyone in the US has ACCESS to care, but the cost is high.
At 12/19/10 04:45 PM, Ravariel wrote: Waitwaitwait.
Are there people, in this very thread, DEFENDING the Senate's (Repubs) action to block this bill? Are people actually arguing that it should not pass?
I just want to make sure, because aside from gum and Ericho, that's what it sounds like.
Shouldn't it be New York that pays them?
At 12/19/10 02:45 PM, AapoJoki wrote:At 12/18/10 02:12 PM, Memorize wrote: You're a fool to follow a consensus that's constantly shifting.Examples, please. How has it shifted?
How many times has the scientific consensus been right in the last 2000 or so years?
I mean, it's not like Darwin had 100% accuracy, did he?
At 12/18/10 12:29 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
There is scientific consensus that global warming is a real thing. But you hear republican talking heads saying there isn't enough proof all the time.
You're a fool to follow a consensus that's constantly shifting.
Which just goes to show how unscientific you are.
Dumb Fuck.
At 12/15/10 07:22 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: The government has the power to tax the people. The mandate essentially says that you will be taxed to provide a service (health care) if you don't already have a plan to help cover the costs of healthcare.
At 12/14/10 09:07 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Translation of the translation: "Why actually READ the post, especially the bits that totally point out why what I'm saying is crap...when I can deliberately misunderstand and troll?"
"If the Government determined that the sun causes skin cancer, could it then order its populace to go to the store and buy a hat?"
It's not hard to figure out. Point being that the pro-obamacare side doesn't even have an argument.
At 12/14/10 02:39 PM, Stoicish wrote:
It doesn't matter if a judge has ideological leanings or not. Most do, but the purpose of being a judge is to ignore those and be an independent judiciary. There have been judges who recused themselves just because it looked like there may be a conflict of interest. What he did was wrong even if you agree with his ruling or not.
Translation: "It's only a conflict of interest if it disagrees with me."
At 12/11/10 09:02 PM, Slizor wrote:
You appear to have failed to finish your post.
Could you please share your insights into why it is you feel that I am incorrect?
I wonder how long you sat there, writing out that paragraph in spell check to make yourself sound even remotely intelligent.
At 12/11/10 03:01 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Seriously...quit picking apart posts to troll already. Either add to the discussion or just fuck off. I'm so sick of you picking and choosing and missing the entire point of what people are saying (most likely deliberately) so you can troll.
You can't tell me you didn't think the same thing when he said liberal media bias didn't "really" exist.
Why is it that, in a country 42% to 20% conservative over liberal, I always find more liberals claim there's no left wing bias in the media than conservatives do right wing bias?
Bottom line is: Slizor is nothing more than one of those idiots who would protest illegal wars and torture during the Bush years, and yet cling to Obama's dick when he does nothing different. Instead clinging to the tired 2 year old excuse of "He can't do everything over night" or "It's the Republicans fault".
Hence: Dumb Fuck
At 12/11/10 07:12 AM, Slizor wrote:
Second, there is a whole side of the political spectrum that is missing; there is no "far left" news station, or even a "left" news station. This distortion is indicative generally of American politics but really does mess up any idea of plurality.
Which only goes to show how much of a dumb fuck you really are.
At 12/11/10 02:58 AM, poxpower wrote:
Giving money to the rich is less beneficial for the economy than giving it to the middle class and the poor.
So if you're going to tax at all, tax them more.
See, this is your problem.
You're claiming that keeping taxes where they are, whereby the Government TAKES money from people, is actually giving money to the rich.
I love the assumption that everything people make automatically belongs to the Government and they let you keep of portion of that money and you should be happy.
What's funny is that you only like that 1 way.
If the Government taxes the rich, it's "ok" because a tax cut amounts to GIVING them money (rather than letting them keep more of their own money.
But if the government ever raised taxes on the poor and middle class, why... "OMG, OUTRAGE! HOW COULD YOU TAKE THEIR MONEY?!"
I'm fairly sure Republicans aren't anti-tax, given that they love themselves some sweet sweet oil and farm subsidies as well as expensive foreign wars.
Yeah, how's that Middle East military conflict been drawing down since Democrat's control in congress (since 2006) and Obama (2008)?
Oh... right. we're still fucking there.
At 12/10/10 07:03 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: He just finished. 8.5 hours. No one picked up after him. Dissapointing.
Yes, because it's so horrible that anyone would have a right to their own money/property.
You know, it's amazing how a group of people like you keep talking how people "own their own bodies", yet demand that everything people earn is automatically owned by the Government.
At 12/10/10 06:49 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Fox News does not serve as a catalyst for GOOD public debate. Misinformation used as fact is, in my opinion, the very antithesis of a good debate.
So if people don't like something, just blame it on misinformation and that "we know best".
At 12/10/10 04:29 AM, poxpower wrote:
Well what do you think they were doing when they constantly hammered "socialized medicine" on their shows?
The goal was pretty obvious: show how Obama is like Stalin and Mao. There's one blubbering oaf who doesn't even try to hide it, he's called Glen Beck and his metabolism has the unique ability to convert his excrement into filler for the gaps in his skull.
Because you always came to the defense of Bush when people called him Hitler.
Funny thing, Obama's policies are identical to Bush's, yet you still cling on to his dick like his nutsack.
The lulz are hilarious!
At 12/10/10 03:34 AM, poxpower wrote: Anyone who's slogan is basically "you should trust me!" is probably full of shit.
Amazing how you never apply that same rule with the Government.
Funny how when people call it for what it is, ie "Government run Health Care" (Which we've already had for years), you dumbasses consider it "slanted".
No, perhaps we should call it for what the Government calls it as a means of making it sound good (like the Patriot Act), with "public option".
lol, you idiots never think it through.
At 12/7/10 11:53 PM, Warforger wrote:
Um no, Obama broke a few but most are in the works or done.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
promises/
They actually count sending and transferring troops from Iraq to afghanistan while hiring military contractors to replace the ones from Iraq as keeping his promise of a draw down.
They're full of shit.
At 12/7/10 08:44 AM, Memorize wrote: Because Ike, Nixon, and Ford weren't Republicans.
And nevermind that the graph conveniently dis-includes FDR.
And Obama, lol.
Because Ike, Nixon, and Ford weren't Republicans.
And nevermind that the graph conveniently dis-includes FDR.
At 12/4/10 02:11 AM, The-General-Public wrote:
Can you elaborate why?
Care to elaborate why it's ok to notify the parents of every other aspect of their child's condition/behavior except abortion?
Just wondering since I find an extremist arguing with another extremist rather amusing.
At 12/1/10 11:01 PM, The-General-Public wrote:
I want as few abortions as possible. Having a solution as insane as yours doesn't fit into "possible"
I don't support that... the guy is insane.
I'm just wondering why so many pro-choice organizations and individuals crusade against anything that would reduce abortion numbers.
Even if when it's something as simple as showing an ultra-sound.
At 12/1/10 05:05 PM, The-General-Public wrote:At 12/1/10 04:19 PM, yonokowhat wrote: about we have a system?How about no?
if the woman has 2-3 abortions we have the ability by law to remove her uterus/ovarys as she obvisously doesnt want erm
For a group of people who claim to want "as few abortions as possible', could you give me a good reason on how an individual could have a legitimate claim to several abortions?
At 12/1/10 02:44 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
Well, you've never really espoused any "liberal" ideas...so if you're not liberal, and you're not conservative...your what then?
Libertarian silly.
I guess you could call me Economically Conservative, but... if that's the only criteria you're going for...
But I was assuming he was talking about social values. Because if so, I'm anti-war, anti-death penalty, favor legalized gambling, prostitution, and drugs (even hard drugs), favor repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and accept evolution as fact.
So...
I'm not entirely sure where he was going with his response to me, lol.
Also was that really the only thing you could find fault with or criticize from that post? You're slipping.
No, but I felt bad for calling him a slut... well, my slut... my slutty luv-muffin.
At 12/1/10 12:46 AM, poxpower wrote:
But the most hilarious thing is how all you conservatives want more guns in schools and for babies to be trained in martial arts, yet you're the ones always eating apples for diner.
HA! HILAAAARRRIOUS!
</mem>
The flaw here is actually thinking that I'm conservative, lol.
At 11/30/10 10:32 PM, Imperator wrote:
A "trend' means most of the data points fall in a predictable pattern. It doesn't mean every point has to hit the mark, just that over a long period of time with several thousand data points, the majority will follow the pattern.
No shit.
But allow me to translate your sentence in the following way:
"Well, it looks like I was wrong about the majority of scientists being atheist, so I'll say something totally obvious instead."
Though it does remind me of how people use to say that religion would be wiped out on "such and such" a date, but... oh well.
Pointing out 3 people who are big on critical thinking but also religious doesn't actually do anything to counter Pox's argument.
That means a lot coming from a community who can't name just 3 prominent atheists who've contributed to such a degree in scientific advancement/discovery.
The question that should really be asked is what role their religion plays on their success in academia. Because if it turns out they're de-facto atheists/agnostics while in the lab, and their personal beliefs do not impact their academics, your point is moot.
And you're still a fucking moron.
Because obviously a 25 year old from Quebec would know more about science and religion than the very religious people who pioneered massive scientific discoveries even when the community was against them.
At 11/30/10 02:37 AM, poxpower wrote: GAH WHY ARE YOU IDIOTS STILL REPLYING TO MEMORIZE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS???
Holy shit, seriously.
Because, unlike you, their idea of a debate isn't: "I win cuz I say so and when I don't reply, I win by default."
I love you so much, you French Canadian, LUV-Muffin slut.
At 11/30/10 01:28 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:
A few of them? Wouldn't that be like... all two of them? And where did this happen, or not happen? In another thread?
On this one, you idiot.
Or did you completely miss the part where theburningJackass made the comparison of suicide bombings to religion?
Obviously referencing the Middle East. Nevermind the fact that the area with the highest rates of suicide bombings are predominantly Buddhist whose reasons for doing so is due to foreign occupation.
My Question was simply this: If you and/or he consider that true (that suicide bombings are due primarily towards foreign occupation rather than religion), then why the fuck didn't you say anything about it?
Uh... yeah, it is. Now we have - oh. I get it.
Grrrr a theist thought up something I believe!? Grrr!!!
It is funny. It just proves how pathetic you people are.
You piggy back off the work of deists and religious people of whom all your beliefs have come from, while criticizing those very people for being stupid.
Why is it that Dawkins is more well known than Robert Bakker when Bakker has contributed much more to scientific discovery (even going against the consensus and end up being correct) than Dawkins ever has?
Now, if it were true that atheists really were more "scientific", then he would be. They would cheer and revere him for his work. Instead we get a militant like Dawkins who only regresses the country with his "I'm better than you" bullshit.
And why? Well because he's an atheist too. All to make some people in a group feel better about themselves.
