Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

This is a worthless post

Straw-man Argument

Keep preaching to the ignorant

---

At 1/15/07 08:22 PM, Exblade wrote: i am so sick of threads like these, there is practically no point to these threads other than to piss of members of a certain party

who cares if some liberals are hypocrites, there are some Conserative hypocrites too and yet i never saw a thread called "Rightist Hypocripsy" or something like that

If you can't find them you're not looking hard enough, you might find them in posts and not in actual threads, but you'll find them.

---

At 12/17/06 02:06 PM, JakeHero wrote: #12. Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, but Bill Maher is clever and not an asshole like that Rush Limbaugh.

Well..Maher didn't condemn illegal drug use and then get caught.

Funny you mention leftist hypocrisy, then include a right wing hypocrite.

---

At 7/27/07 06:40 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 12/17/06 02:06 PM, JakeHero wrote: #12. Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, but Bill Maher is clever and not an asshole like that Rush Limbaugh.

Well..Maher didn't condemn illegal drug use and then get caught.

Funny you mention leftist hypocrisy, then include a right wing hypocrite.

I'm making fun of hypocritical mentality of leftwingers. Not the pundits themselves, but thanks for the attempted ownage.

---

At 7/27/07 06:42 PM, JakeHero wrote: I'm making fun of hypocritical mentality of leftwingers. Not the pundits themselves, but thanks for the attempted ownage.

Regardless...its redundant to note leftist hypocrisies (acts or mentality) when you mention the names of known right wing hypocrites .

---

At 7/27/07 06:49 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Regardless...its redundant to note leftist hypocrisies (acts or mentality) when you mention the names of known right wing hypocrites .

And "Right Wing hypocrisy" isn't the name of this thread. If you want to make your own topic on it fee; free. I'll tell you what I told Sigma, if you don't like what my thread's about then don't read it.

---

At 7/27/07 06:52 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 7/27/07 06:49 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Regardless...its redundant to note leftist hypocrisies (acts or mentality) when you mention the names of known right wing hypocrites .

And "Right Wing hypocrisy" isn't the name of this thread. If you want to make your own topic on it fee; free. I'll tell you what I told Sigma, if you don't like what my thread's about then don't read it.

So since it's not named "right wing hypocrisy," that means im not allowed to point out right wing hypocrisy?

Weak....

---

At 7/27/07 06:52 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 7/27/07 06:49 PM, public-enemy1 wrote: Regardless...its redundant to note leftist hypocrisies (acts or mentality) when you mention the names of known right wing hypocrites .

And "Right Wing hypocrisy" isn't the name of this thread. If you want to make your own topic on it fee; free. I'll tell you what I told Sigma, if you don't like what my thread's about then don't read it.

And just so everyone knows. I believe there is a thread on right-wing hypocracy.

I thought it was full of funny.

---

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.

---

I'm making fun of hypocritical mentality of leftwingers. Not the pundits themselves, but thanks for the attempted ownage.

I think not. What you are attempting to do is make fun of hypothetical liberal positions and the hypothetical liberals that would put forward these views. To do this you are using a large number of right-wing views to support your positions. You are not getting anywhere near "left-wingers", nor are you getting anywhere near to a valid argument.

---

At 12/17/06 02:06 PM, JakeHero wrote:
#15. A black person can call a white person a honkey, but a white person can't say the N-word in any context.

Jake, you are seriously buttfuck retarded if don't see the difference between honkey and the N-word.

So shut up and read a fucking history book.

---

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 7/29/07 03:15 AM, JakeHero wrote:

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?

Hmm interesting.. it wreaked of malice and racist overtones.

if don't see the difference between honkey and the N-word.

Okay, explain to me how one or the other is any worse.

Rather, explain to us why they're both equally inappropriate.
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.

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.

It seems you're an idiot, it was funny how you used limbaugh to point out a leftist hypocrisy as well. What next? All your senators that cry wolf at legalization of prostitution and then get caught with their pants down? What about the idiots that think Bush is a benevolent saint whereas Kerry was ill-deserving of his war accolades. Funny considering Bush sulked and ran away from the army when it was his due time to serve.

---

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 7/29/07 06:16 AM, JakeHero wrote:

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).

Third grade called and they want their rhetorical sarcasm back.

and racist overtones.

This is rich coming from the bigot.

lol im not the one that automatically assumed islam and muslims were inherently evil because of a couple of crazies, im not the one making racist remarks here. Its ironic that you call be a bigot when this entire thread is a Straw-man feel good thread to stroke your ego.

Rather, explain to us why they're both equally inappropriate.

They're both racial slurs, you imbecile. Wow really? I had no idea. The question I put forth was do they both share equal malice?

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?
He hasn't responded, 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.

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?

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, lynching them, enslaving them, raping them et. al. The history is no where near the same you dumb shit.

'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)'

It seems you're an idiot,

It seems to me I'm getting under your skin, which is an automatic win for me.

Nope, but its funny how truly idiotic you are. You haven't discredited shit or even presented a decent rebuttal, your entire thread is a failure because it was made by a failure on the failed premise of declaring liberals hypocrites when its quite apparent NeoConservatives like yourself are just inherently inferior.

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?

Straw-Man arguments, look it up sometime.

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.

lol

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 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 the idiots that think Bush is a benevolent saint

No one believes that. Conservatives tend not to be as fanatical about politicians representing them.

Nope, fanatical would fit you well. Ignorant would be an appropriate label as well. Tell that to all the crazies that still think he's a great president.

whereas Kerry was ill-deserving of his war accolades.

One of those wounds was self-inflicted, actually.

Still an idiotic hypocrisy on your behalf

---

You could better go about doing this by saying; general liberal consensi [consensus' or consensee] are in conflict of values.

For a started point:

If you can get some sort of survey that shows that most lefists are against the use of the N word but not the W or C word [also racial slurrs] you have conflicting of values [double standard] for a general consensus idea.

Then you go to another one.

---

At 12/18/06 03:20 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Want another pic of a sick and demented practice, here you are.

youre a dumbfuck. that quite obviously wasn't an abortion.

---

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?

---

tell that to an african-american. again not a liberal issue. it just seems conservatives like yourself seem to lack empathy or understanding in your resolve to make things 'right'.

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?

geez i guess history really blew over your head didnt it? lol

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.

tell that to an african-american. apparently being a fuckwit is your priority and then you suggest its somehow a partisan issue... ok? lol

'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.

have a look at what you wrote and youll understand why i suggested it was a paraphrase.

Nope, but its funny how truly idiotic you are.

It's funny because you're getting upset over what people say over the net.

ok sure thing buddy keep telling yourself that

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.

no, its that your incapable of retorting to a multitude of corrections. you muster up a pathetic counter-point only to be cut down and then what do you resort to? you tell them to shut up and that this is all a joke. seems youre the idiot that gets a little too carried away.

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.

ok point it out to me, where did i even suggest there was no such thing as a liberal hypocrisy? yeah exactly nothing right? you just like pulling that crap out of your overweight ass.

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. :)

hey i thought this thread was all about labels. and no that would be right.

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.

in reference to your thread maybe? damn you really do fail at reading. 'reinforcing the stereotype that liberals are all labels' --> original ill give you that lol.

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?

i guess the point of that response shot right over your head again

Nope, fanatical would fit you well.

I can't help but think you would speak that in a lisp.

cool, is it a giuliani 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.

mmm definitely a karl marxist. what is that your advanced way of calling me a commie? lol.
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?

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.

ok?

Still an idiotic hypocrisy on your behalf

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?

mmkay byes

---

woops missed a bit. my bad ; [

At 7/30/07 10:41 AM, JakeHero wrote:

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?

nice retort

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.

point it out. yeah i thought so.

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.

already did. seems elementary comprehension skills were something you didnt pick up.

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.

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.

He hasn't responded,

You only gave him a few hours before you decided to pelt me with your bullshit in his stead.

has he responded yet? i came across the thread i responded, truly just have a sulk.

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.

since when was this a partisan problem? 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.

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.

---

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 7/30/07 10:41 AM, JakeHero wrote:

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?

nice retort

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 01:55 PM, JakeHero wrote: whinge

lol

---

your points fail miserably

i loved this one though;
'40 year old aol user looking for underrage pussy'

and nope you still didn't address the issue you just started throwing feces at me again for your emotional problems.

---

At 7/30/07 02:18 PM, tony4moroney wrote: your points fail miserably

i loved this one though;
'40 year old aol user looking for underrage pussy'

and nope you still didn't address the issue you just started throwing feces at me again for your emotional problems.

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."

---

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 whereas kerry was ill-deserving of any accolades. now whilst kerry actually served in the armed forces and was deployed to vietnam bush left before his deployment.

happy?

you do recognize i came across this thread before and i didnt give a rats ass right? maybe if you didnt start slinging quasi-racist remarks at another user i'd have been fine with everything. and dont deny it.

"maybe we should lynch your ass" - jakehero

and you realize why im not going to give a comprehensive rebuttal right? because that would mean according to you im 'emotionally afflicted' by your second-rate attempt at satire. and what the fuck is the point of refuting an imbecile? now this is long overdue so uhh. bye.

---

At 7/30/07 02:38 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

i called hypocrisy on his side for claiming bush was a war hero for his servitude in the armed forces whereas kerry was ill-deserving of any accolades. now whilst kerry actually served in the armed forces and was deployed to vietnam bush left before his deployment.

And I call hypocracy on questioning Bush's military record while disregarding Clinton's dodging the draft by escaping to another country.

Happy?

---

At 7/30/07 10:41 AM, JakeHero wrote: Just be sure to tell the same to all the crazies that think Fidel Castro is a great leader.

;
I'm not sure how one goes about giving the title 'Great Leader' & in my short lifetime here in Canada we sure as hell haven't had any.
BUt if you look at when Castro managed to take over Cuba, the whole goverment was corrupt. The U.S. organized crime families were setting up shop big time in Cuba. Another country just off shore & a great place to do business, because the whole goverment was basicly operating like a mafiosa crime family.
So even though average Cubans may have had a chance (slightly) to succeed it would be a slim chance at best.
Now the U.S. refused to have anything to do with Cuba & Castro, so what choice did he have.
He went knocking on the U.S.S.R's door.
You can say that the average wage etc is bad in Cuba today, how much of that can be laid at the doorstep of the U.S. having no trade with that nation.
But even with so many monetary & trade avenues cut off by the U.S.
Medical care is free for everyone.
Drugs are so damn close to being free compared to the U.S. & Canada they are basicly free.
Befor you go shitting on the leader of Cuba you might want to look at what your leaders have done for you lately. (and I'm talking about the crap leadership that's in Canada as well.)

---

At 7/30/07 02:16 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 7/30/07 01:55 PM, JakeHero wrote: whinge

lol

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 12/17/06 02:06 PM, JakeHero wrote: #1. A woman has the right to an abortion, but the man can't decide if he wants to support the child.

Except that that's a logical fallacy, since either way the way you phrased it leads to "hypocrisy". Reverse your statement, and you'll see how stupid it is either way.

#2. You can have any form of speech on our campuses, except when it goes against our own. This means all bake-sales making fun of Affirmative Action are hereby banned.

Except that nothing in leftist philosophy calls for the banning of free speech. Oops.

#3. Bush's Patriot Act is a violation of the Consitution and gives the government more power than it should, except when it comes to owning firearms. The people shouldn't be able to own guns despite it being explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights that they may.

The Patriot Act has nothing to do with fire-arms. You're an idiot.

#4. Taxes should be increased, just wait awhile though, I need to put my money in a foreign bank.

Of course, every single liberal that's ever lived is rich, and only wants a tax increase for everyone ELSE.

#5. I'm all for a person's right to choose, except when it comes to privatizing Social Security. In that case the people should have no say and be the government's bitch.

How does being pro-abortion but anti-private-social-security make you a hypocrite?

#6. Saddam shouldn't be tried because the Tribunal trying him is an American-established Kangaroo-Court, but Pinochet should of had his ass shipped to GB and be tried by their courts.

Except that leftist masses never claimed Saddam shouldn't be tried.

#7. The terrorist are justified in their killing because they've been wronged in the past, except Israel shouldn't be able to kill ANYONE even in order to ensure its survival.

Leftists don't claim that the terrorists where justified, but yes, Israeli terrorists and mass murderers are fucking scum.

#8. Radical Muslims are A-okay and just misunderstood, christians are America's greatest enemy with their religious beliefs of how marriage should be between man-and-woman and all that prude stuff, whereas Jihadists want to blow up some people, what's so bad about that?!

Oops! Time Magazine shows that the majority of liberals are Christians.

#9. Foley should be in prison for having Interweb secks with and underage boy, but Ted Kennedy's manslaughter is not even worth reviewing by a court.

One person being innocent of a crime doesn't mean everyone else is. Nice to know that you support pedophiles, though.

#10. The Black Panthers are good, the KKK are evil.

Also good to know that you're pro-lynching-black-people.

#11. Clinton shouldn't of been impeached for lying under Oath, but Karl Rove should be indicted for ousting a CIA clerk.

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".

#12. Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, but Bill Maher is clever and not an asshole like that Rush Limbaugh.

The difference is that Rush Limbaugh is not only an idiot like Bill Maher, he's also cruel. If Bill Maher also went so low as to get to political opponents by going on national T.V and insulting calling that opponents 13 year old daughter a "dog", I would also consider Maher scum.

#13. Faux News is biased, but Air America, Moveon.org, and NBC are a reliable source of impartial information.

The difference being that Air America actively admits that it's leftist, 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.

#14. David Dukes is a bigot, but Ted Turner isn't.

Glad to know that you really, REALLY like lynching black people. Oh, and Ted Turners not a bigot. He's just too fucking insane to have any idea what he's saying.

#15. A black person can call a white person a honkey, but a white person can't say the N-word in any context.

Actually, I've never seen a liberal say that. But feel free to name an example.

#16. Capitalism is evil, despite communism killed many times more people in a short amount of time, but communism is better because it's a leftist ideology.

Ah. And here you show stupidity by mixing "Liberal" with "Socialist".

#17. Bush, whom served in the National Guard Aviation team and got an honorable discharge two years prior to the Vietnam Conflict, was a draft-dodger because he didn't sign up for the military second time to fight, and should never suited to be President; while Bill Clinton, who had never been in the armed-forces and was in France during Vietnam, was a man of conviction and deserved to Commander-and-Chief the military.

The difference is that Bill Clinton just pussies out of his American duties. George Bush pussies out, but in the process screws some deserving Marine out of a much vied for position on the Air National Guard.

#18. I am morally superior to any conservative, despite the fact conservative give more to chairty than me.

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?

#19. America should intervene in foreign countries for humanitarian reasons, unless it's a republican President.

Because all situations are exactly the same.

#20. Michael Savage is a mean-spirited littleman, but Randi Rhodes isn't a crabby old cunt and only tells it as it is.

Michael savage isn't mean-spirited, he's just stupid and frequently incorrect. At least Rhodes can get some facts correct every once in a while.

Well, I'm getting bored writing this so I'll stop here. I thought my fellow conservative would enjoy my satire. If you don't I won't bother writing anything more to my list of Leftist Hypocrisy. To anyone who feels the urge to challenge my posts, don't. I might not even bother responding.

Either you where serious, and are a moron, or (and I suspect the latter) tried and failed to be funny.