Oh, I thought I should add this: This is the guy who's making the accusation. Of note is the fact that his lawyer's license was suspended, and he himself failed that lie detector test.
Jen thinks it isn't fair that I don't really care if she likes me or not.
Great for the Internet to give the nutjobs a voice (and I mean both, Jen and the guy in the video). Great for us that they are this easy to spot. Psssssss, the world is full of lies. Question everything you see and hear. Read the message at the top of the forums main page and live by it.
I dropped the wingnut persona as soon as you showed your true colors (hypocrite and blinded by your ideology). I don't need to go that route anymore Joe. In fact, since I dropped the persona you have not been able to win an argument with me.
I could be funny and suggest she is related to you but:
1. She has not gone back and edited her earlier posts for content to change a losing argument. 2. She has not resorted to personal attacks in lieu of supporting her argument.
I dropped the wingnut persona as soon as you showed your true colors (hypocrite and blinded by your ideology).
I could be funny and suggest she is related to you . . .
Steve, you've been using that "blinded by ideology" quote since early '07. You probably heard that from someone else too, because as we see from your lame riposte that Ms. Jen is related to me, you're just not capable of original thought.
As for winning arguments, I haven't really argued with you since you admitted that you're playing a part and doing it badly. But even then, you're too dense to realize when you've lost an argument, so you're not exactly a credible scorekeeper.
As for winning arguments, I haven't really argued with you since you admitted that you're playing a part and doing it badly. But even then, you're too dense to realize when you've lost an argument, so you're not exactly a credible scorekeeper.
Responding to facts with insults is hardly a way to argue a point. Either defend your positions or admit defeat. Ignoring the other side of the argument only makes you look foolish. Not posting when the other side has won only stops the discussion from gaining closure and makes you look like a baby who can't handle himself in an argument.
[Obama]'s a cold blooded murderer. On top of that, he's a closeted homosexual.
Obama is a murderer. I think his past will catch up with him eventually.
Jen, excuse me for saying this, but you sound kinda like a 40 year old woman from a rural area that steals spark plugs and is a strict Catholic. So, what is wrong with being homosexual? And do you have any credible LOOKING evidence that Obama is gay or a murderer?
Responding to facts with insults is hardly a way to argue a point.
Steve, you presented 0 facts in the post that Joe responded too. I think it might be smart for you to stop thinking that every word you type is a fact. Sure, it's a fact that you have typed said message, but if the message consists of facts is pretty much never the case.
Responding to facts with insults is hardly a way to argue a point.
Steve, you presented 0 facts in the post that Joe responded too. I think it might be smart for you to stop thinking that every word you type is a fact. Sure, it's a fact that you have typed said message, but if the message consists of facts is pretty much never the case.
You see, Steve, more people than me have pointed this out. More people than me have told you that you are being trollish, that you don't argue well, and that you are extremely dense.
Are we all "blinded by ideology"? Are we all "foolish"? Are we all "being babies who can't handle themselves in an argument"?
I think it might be a good idea for you to ask yourself whether it's more reasonable to think that (1) everyone else is wrong and we somehow don't appreciate your brilliance or (2) you might be wrong and you need to re-examine your posts to see what can be done to improve your arguments.
Responding to facts with insults is hardly a way to argue a point.
Steve, you presented 0 facts in the post that Joe responded too. I think it might be smart for you to stop thinking that every word you type is a fact. Sure, it's a fact that you have typed said message, but if the message consists of facts is pretty much never the case.
You see, Steve, more people than me have pointed this out. More people than me have told you that you are being trollish, that you don't argue well, and that you are extremely dense.
Are we all "blinded by ideology"? Are we all "foolish"? Are we all "being babies who can't handle themselves in an argument"?
I think it might be a good idea for you to ask yourself whether it's more reasonable to think that (1) everyone else is wrong and we somehow don't appreciate your brilliance or (2) you might be wrong and you need to re-examine your posts to see what can be done to improve your arguments.
1. Blinded by Ideology - Please show me where (on the forums) you have spoken positively about McCain and negatively about Obama. Half points for speaking positively about other Republicans or negatively about other Democrats when the discussion crosses party lines (talking down about Hillary in an Obama discussion does not count nor does any other discussion that follows along those lines.)
2. You still have not explained how not allowing an up or down vote on a piece of legislation is the same as allowing a vote and voting it down.
3. You have still not backed up your claim that Roe beat Davis because of off-shore drilling. Nor have you explained the relevancy of an incumbent losing a primary in an area where incumbents traditionally do not face primary challenges.
4. You derail discussions into personal attacks when you see yourself losing said discussion. Even in defeat you never admit defeat and bring closure to the thread.
5. I posted that image because that is how the rest of the forum sees us when the discussion devolves from being issue based to being you hurling personal attacks.
6. In the logic puzzle thread your first comment was one to accuse me of plagiarism!
7. It is obvious that talking with you on here is a complete waste of time. If you can't keep a discussion civil it's not worth my time to respond. If you post something that is false I will call you out on it, I will not, however, allow you to derail the discussion into personal attacks. All such comments will be ignored and only comments relevant to the discussion at hand will be answered.
Can you please specify which post you are referring to?
You complained at Joe for not responding to any facts in his post. While there were 0 facts to counter in the post he was responding to.
Also you have a quoting problem in that in your above post you attributed something to me that was written by Jen.
Ah yes I see, must've clicked the quote button in your post instead of Jen's post. That was not intentional, I will fix it after this post. And the word is 'mistake', not 'problem'.
That post was aimed not at one single post of Joe's but the myriad of Joe's posts lumped together. Take a look at this thread for a better idea of what I am talking about.
If I cared about that multi-thread argument of you two, I would take a look, but I don't, so I only look at the relevant posts for this latest nonsense. And why should I go back far, far into this 15 page thread when all that matters for your current constantly repeating complaints is this?
As for winning arguments, I haven't really argued with you since you admitted that you're playing a part and doing it badly.
1. Blinded by Ideology - Please show me where (on the forums) you have spoken positively about homeopathy and negatively about the scientific method. Half points for speaking positively about other homeopaths or negatively about other scientists when the discussion crosses disciplinary lines (talking down about J.J. Thompson in a Bohr discussion does not count nor does any other discussion that follows along those lines.)
Would Joe be "blinded by ideology" if you were talking about this instead?
1. Blinded by Ideology - Please show me where (on the forums) you have spoken positively about homeopathy and negatively about the scientific method. Half points for speaking positively about other homeopaths or negatively about other scientists when the discussion crosses disciplinary lines (talking down about J.J. Thompson in a Bohr discussion does not count nor does any other discussion that follows along those lines.)
Would Joe be "blinded by ideology" if you were talking about this instead?
Steve doesn't really know what "blinded by ideology" means. He probably heard it on Limbaugh and he thinks it makes him sound smart. It certainly doesn't mean simply supporting a candidate. No private citizen is under any sort of mandate to say bad things about his own candidate.
[Obama]'s a cold blooded murderer. On top of that, he's a closeted homosexual.
Obama is a murderer. I think his past will catch up with him eventually. Jen, excuse me for saying this, but you sound kinda like a 40 year old woman from a rural area that steals spark plugs and is a strict Catholic. So, what is wrong with being homosexual? And do you have any credible LOOKING evidence that Obama is gay or a murderer?
Again, with personal attacks. I have no problems with homosexuals. I've actually heard they are quite polite. For example, at their gay bars they are always asking if they can push your stool in. People can choose to be homosexual, even if it means living a lifestyle of death, it's a free country and I can respect that. As for my proof, why should I bother? Any source I post will not be accepted by close-minded individuals. If you really want the real truth, just use Yahoo and see for yourself. Or better yet, just wait and see – this will be out in the open sooner or later.
Again, with personal attacks. I have no problems with homosexuals. I've actually heard they are quite polite. For example, at their gay bars they are always asking if they can push your stool in. People can choose to be homosexual, even if it means living a lifestyle of death, it's a free country and I can respect that. As for my proof, why should I bother? Any source I post will not be accepted by close-minded individuals. If you really want the real truth, just use Yahoo and see for yourself. Or better yet, just wait and see – this will be out in the open sooner or later.
If you would look at the post times you would've noticed that that post was my first reply to your claims, if you go read my post in Sonic's travel topic you'll see my amazed post at how I was right, and no, I had not read that post before saying that I think you're a strict Catholic.
As for my proof, why should I bother? Any source I post will not be accepted by close-minded individuals. If you really want the real truth, just use Yahoo and see for yourself. Or better yet, just wait and see – this will be out in the open sooner or later.
Well, if you want to come of reliable at all, proof actually helps. You see, this forum actually tries to have intellectual discussions from time to time. Because of this this forum also values peer reviewed scientific articles over a person's word. As for being close-minded, you are the person who makes off-hand remarks that a homosexual should not be elected for president. I personally find that a lot more close-minded than not accepting sensationalistic headlines and articles and photoshopped images.
On a side note, Yahoo! is not really a reliable source for news. Kinda like Fox news. And if Obama really murdered, or ordered people to murder, and it comes out, so what? Putting a murderer in the White house can't be much worse than putting a baseless-war-loving gorilla twice in said White house.
1. Blinded by Ideology - Please show me where (on the forums) you have spoken positively about homeopathy and negatively about the scientific method. Half points for speaking positively about other homeopaths or negatively about other scientists when the discussion crosses disciplinary lines (talking down about J.J. Thompson in a Bohr discussion does not count nor does any other discussion that follows along those lines.)
Would Joe be "blinded by ideology" if you were talking about this instead?
Bad comparison, try again.
Democrat and Republican are opposite sides of the political spectrum. A more accurate analogy would be to use to opposing views of a scientific theory that has large numbers of supporters on both sides.
Steve doesn't really know what "blinded by ideology" means. He probably heard it on Limbaugh and he thinks it makes him sound smart. It certainly doesn't mean simply supporting a candidate. No private citizen is under any sort of mandate to say bad things about his own candidate.
Blinded by ideology refers to the way you only post good things about Democrats and bad things about Republicans. When something contrary to this viewpoint arises on the forum you ignore it as if it does not exist rather than discuss its existence. Anything that does not fit your view of politics does not exist to you, you are "blind" to it.
Actually, totalitarianism and anarchy are opposite ends of a spectrum. Liberal and conservative, the average of each party (Democrats and Republics, respectively, but Democrats nowadays are generally moderate rather than truly liberal), are just nudges to either side of moderate by comparison.
Democrat and Republican are opposite sides of the political spectrum. A more accurate analogy would be to use to opposing views of a scientific theory that has large numbers of supporters on both sides.
I see you ignored my question. And missed the point. Fine. Pick whatever two sides to the argument you want. The point is nobody has to say nice things about anyone just to please you. I don't have to say crap like, "Ptolemy and Copernicus both brought some good ideas to the table" if you happen to believe geocentrism. Ptolemy might have been a nice guy, but he was wrong.
I see you ignored my question. And missed the point. Fine. Pick whatever two sides to the argument you want. The point is nobody has to say nice things about anyone just to please you. I don't have to say crap like, "Ptolemy and Copernicus both brought some good ideas to the table" if you happen to believe geocentrism. Ptolemy might have been a nice guy, buthe was wrong.
I've seen bumper stickers around town with one word on them. Obamanos, thought it was pretty funny. For those not in the know vamanos is spanish for "let's go"
Funny thing is that this article could just as easily be talking about left-wing bloggers rather than Soviet radio. The scary thing is the acknowledgement of the power of media, when packaged correctly.
I find this really interesting, all the stories talk about how Obama is getting 3 to 1 the coverage of McCain, but if you actually watch Cable news or read the stories a majority of these stories have guests that are super anti-Obama and they are given the Majority of the airtime and at the same time the stories that are brought up are always in some sort of "Is McCain right about Obama being a asshole" sorta thing (and this was CNN).. If McCain wants this kinda attention he can have it.
Comments
Shall we begin the proceedings? Or do we give Jen a chance to redeem her/his/itself?
that I don't really care
if she likes me or not.
Great for the Internet to give the nutjobs a voice (and I mean both, Jen and the guy in the video). Great for us that they are this easy to spot. Psssssss, the world is full of lies. Question everything you see and hear. Read the message at the top of the forums main page and live by it.
I could be funny and suggest she is related to you but:
1. She has not gone back and edited her earlier posts for content to change a losing argument.
2. She has not resorted to personal attacks in lieu of supporting her argument.
So she is clearly not related to you.
As for winning arguments, I haven't really argued with you since you admitted that you're playing a part and doing it badly. But even then, you're too dense to realize when you've lost an argument, so you're not exactly a credible scorekeeper.
Responding to facts with insults is hardly a way to argue a point. Either defend your positions or admit defeat. Ignoring the other side of the argument only makes you look foolish. Not posting when the other side has won only stops the discussion from gaining closure and makes you look like a baby who can't handle himself in an argument.
Are we all "blinded by ideology"? Are we all "foolish"? Are we all "being babies who can't handle themselves in an argument"?
I think it might be a good idea for you to ask yourself whether it's more reasonable to think that (1) everyone else is wrong and we somehow don't appreciate your brilliance or (2) you might be wrong and you need to re-examine your posts to see what can be done to improve your arguments.
2. You still have not explained how not allowing an up or down vote on a piece of legislation is the same as allowing a vote and voting it down.
3. You have still not backed up your claim that Roe beat Davis because of off-shore drilling. Nor have you explained the relevancy of an incumbent losing a primary in an area where incumbents traditionally do not face primary challenges.
4. You derail discussions into personal attacks when you see yourself losing said discussion. Even in defeat you never admit defeat and bring closure to the thread.
5. I posted that image because that is how the rest of the forum sees us when the discussion devolves from being issue based to being you hurling personal attacks.
6. In the logic puzzle thread your first comment was one to accuse me of plagiarism!
7. It is obvious that talking with you on here is a complete waste of time. If you can't keep a discussion civil it's not worth my time to respond. If you post something that is false I will call you out on it, I will not, however, allow you to derail the discussion into personal attacks. All such comments will be ignored and only comments relevant to the discussion at hand will be answered.
Oops, wrong thread.
On a side note, Yahoo! is not really a reliable source for news. Kinda like Fox news. And if Obama really murdered, or ordered people to murder, and it comes out, so what? Putting a murderer in the White house can't be much worse than putting a baseless-war-loving gorilla twice in said White house.
Have some more bewwies~
Democrat and Republican are opposite sides of the political spectrum. A more accurate analogy would be to use to opposing views of a scientific theory that has large numbers of supporters on both sides.
Blinded by ideology refers to the way you only post good things about Democrats and bad things about Republicans. When something contrary to this viewpoint arises on the forum you ignore it as if it does not exist rather than discuss its existence. Anything that does not fit your view of politics does not exist to you, you are "blind" to it.
Funny thing is that this article could just as easily be talking about left-wing bloggers rather than Soviet radio. The scary thing is the acknowledgement of the power of media, when packaged correctly.