It's just hilarious that you've been pwned so bad but you don't even know it.
When you pwn a strawman you are only pwning yourself. Unless speckospock can cite where I said I was opposed to budget cuts his pwnage is based upon a strawman of his creation.
If you find comedy in seeing people pwn their own strawman arguments then I'm right there with you. Pass the popcorn.
Manufactured war? If you believe the war was "manufactured" then we can find no common ground to debate the issue because your bias is such that even $1 dollar spent on said war is a waste.
We were told that they had WMDs in the first place, and that invading was the only way to stop them from applying those weapons to the US and her allies. There were none.
John McCain's campaign should remind you that the American public was told that we would be "welcomed as liberators", that we could do it with "smaller numbers" and that the "reconstruction would pay for itself." None of these were true.
If you don't believe this was was manufactured, then you are either grossly misinformed or rooted far too heavily in your opinions on the matter.
So I guess I should turn back on my cable TV because $540 (a year of cable) is only 1.5% of my annual salary and isn't worth saving.
How retarded...small budget cuts over time can add up to big savings. You have to start somewhere. People need to quit bitching that the budget cuts aren't big enough. We will get there over time. Cutting things out gradually gives us time to transition.
So I guess I should turn back on my cable TV because $540 (a year of cable) is only 1.5% of my annual salary and isn't worth saving. How retarded...small budget cuts over time can add up to big savings. You have to start somewhere. People need to quit bitching that the budget cuts aren't big enough. We will get there over time. Cutting things out gradually gives us time to transition.
Nuri, I absolutely adore you. Will you have my baby?
Nuri, I absolutely adore you. Will you have my baby?
I don't think a baby will fit in me. ^_~ I will happily take it from you on weekends, feed it sugar, and shake it up before giving it back to you, though.
Nuri, I absolutely adore you. Will you have my baby?
I thought you were against cloned babies!
I don't think a baby will fit in me. ^_~ I will happily take it from you on weekends, feed it sugar, and shake it up before giving it back to you, though.
Nuri, I absolutely adore you. Will you have my baby?
I thought you were against cloned babies!
Cloned? No. Anyway, thanks again, Emily. You are so thoughtfully needling me. I know how much you like to be drawn into frustrating arguments that have no baring on reality with people over and over again. It is so incredibly kind and sweet of you to do it to me. ;P
I don't think a baby will fit in me. ^_~ I will happily take it from you on weekends, feed it sugar, and shake it up before giving it back to you, though.
Awww... can we at least TRY to make a baby.... *pout*
Cloned? No. Anyway, thanks again, Emily. You are so thoughtfully needling me. I know how much you like to be drawn into frustrating arguments that have no baring on reality with people over and over again. It is so incredibly kind and sweet of you to do it to me. ;P
Hey, how else would you and Nuri make a baby? I'm not trolling!
Technically, our DNA could be combined in a laboratory and artificial insemination could ensue. That would not be cloning, but it would still be a science baby.
I don't think a baby will fit in me. ^_~
Things stretch.
And rip. And bleed. It happens to me often enough as it is...I prefer not to instigate it on purpose.
Hey, how else would you and Nuri make a baby? I'm not trolling!
Surrogacy? Turkey baster? My alien anatomy changing gender and impregnating her? Wait... did I just go into hentai territory? Also, I am not anti-cloning for the record.
*sob sob* what is happening? (@_@) When did this thread become futanari making babies? Also, this is hilarious.
You could get in on this, Miss Em! There are always enough tentacles to go 'round!
Would Mr. Obama approve?
Of hot tenticale-lesbian sex? I believe he would calmly look on with a slight smile and say ever-so-coolly "Continue."
Wow, I think you've got yourself the start of a massively popular fanfic right there.... Continue.
Nuri, I absolutely adore you. Will you have my baby?
I don't think a baby will fit in me. ^_~ I will happily take it from you on weekends, feed it sugar, and shake it up before giving it back to you, though.
Please show me where I said I was opposed to budget cuts...When you pwn a strawman you are only pwning yourself. Unless speckospock can cite where I said I was opposed to budget cuts his pwnage is based upon a strawman of his creation.
I askedtwice if you were opposed to the budgets, and bothtimes you replied. Is it my fault you evaded the questions? Regardless, it is obviously not an argument of my own invention, if you deemed it necessary to reply. Besides, did my argument say you were opposed to budget cuts? No, in fact... it said exactly the opposite:
If you are "not opposed" to cutting the budget, why do you have your britches in a bunch over budget cuts?
This, of course, was based upon your claim (that I was, in fact responding to) that:
I have not said I am opposed to cutting the budget.
What can we learn from all this? Simply put, that I have asked twice whether or not you were opposed to the cuts, you responded both times, and evaded the question. Because you evaded the question, I was forced to postulate and refute both of the possible sides (whichI have). Now, you obviously care about the issue since you continue to argue against me, but since you are neither addressing nor accurately representing my points, combined with the fact that you no longer have a substantive argument against them and are relying on semantics based upon a false premise, I am led to conclude that either a) you are defeated and know it, and trying to outsmart me to convince others you've won, or b) you think you've won and are trying to outsmart me to convince the others you've won.
I know your game, and I'm willing to play it. If you continue to evade my question though, we'll get nowhere. I'll ask you a third time, and I expect a straight answer: are you or are you not opposed to the budget cuts?
Iaskedtwiceif you were opposed to the budgets, andbothtimesyou replied. Is it my fault you evaded the questions? Regardless, it is obviously not an argument of my own invention, if you deemed it necessary to reply.
I responded to clarify that my problem was not with cutting the budget but with trying to position a $100 Million dollar cut from a $3.6 Trillion budget as "big money". Your question on support for budget cuts is irrelevant to the point I raised.
What can we learn from all this? Simply put, that I have asked twice whether or not you were opposed to the cuts, you responded both times, and evaded the question. Because you evaded the question, I was forced to postulate and refute both of the possible sides (whichI have). Now, you obviously care about the issue since youcontinueto argue against me, but since you are neither addressing nor accurately representing my points, combined with the fact that you no longer have a substantive argument against them and are relying on semantics based upon a false premise, I am led to conclude that either a) you are defeated and know it, and trying to outsmart me to convince others you've won, or b) you think you've won and are trying to outsmart me to convince the others you've won.
I continue to discuss the issue because the issue is not being discussed. My problem is not with budget cuts but with the way they were being portrayed.
Budget cuts is still a strawman because I never raised or responded to the issue of being for or against budget cuts. What I raised is the issue of trying to pass off a cut of $100 million from a budget of $3.6 trillion as "big money" or as indicative of a sign of fiscal conservatism. It was you who created the strawman when you wrote:
So... you are opposed to cutting $100 million from the budget! Good, because I think it would be better spent on refurnishing the White House with golden toilets and $100 bill toilet paper.
This is the beginning of your strawman argument. An argument that you went on to attack with your blog post.
What can we learn from this? We can learn that you asked a question that was not pertinent to the point I made and then created a strawman argument after I ignored your question.
If you are "not opposed" to cutting the budget, why do you have your britches in a bunch over budget cuts? Why do you continue to argue against those in favor of $100 million in cuts? What harm could possibly come from cutting $100 million?
This is just more of your strawman argument. Please show me where I railed against those in favor of $100 million in cuts.
I'll begin by asking for a fourth time: are you or are you not in favor of the cuts?
Please show me where I railed against those in favor of $100 million in cuts.
First, did I say you "railed" against those in favor of the cuts? No. I merely pointed out you were continuing to argue with them. But that's besides the point because you did just that here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Unless, of course, you would argue that myself, Trogdor, and HungryJoe are none of us in favor of the cuts.
I responded to clarify that my problem was not with cutting the budget but with trying to position a $100 Million dollar cut from a $3.6 Trillion budget as "big money". Your question on support for budget cuts is irrelevant to the point I raised [...] Budget cuts is still a strawman because I never raised or responded to the issue of being for or against budget cuts. What I raised is the issue of trying to pass off a cut of $100 million from a budget of $3.6 trillion as "big money" or as indicative of a sign of fiscal conservatism. It was you who created the strawman when you wrote:
So... youareopposed to cutting $100 million from the budget! Good, because I think it would be better spent on refurnishing the White House with golden toilets and $100 bill toilet paper.
This is the beginning of your strawman argument. An argument that you went on to attack with yourblog post.
What can we learn from this? We can learn that you asked a question that was not pertinent to the point I made and then created a strawman argument after I ignored your question
Hoo boy, there's a string of faulty logic there. Where do I begin?
First of all, should I have used sarcasm green? Was it not apparent that I was not seriously arguing you were in favor of golden toilets? However, that's beside the point. When I asked if you were opposed to the cuts, you responded directly with a shifty answer. Is it not then fair game to continue to discuss the issue that I had brought up and that you responded to directly? You're not the only one here, and just because you didn't raise a point doesn't mean it wasn't relevant. In fact, in light of the fact that you responded each time I asked about the cuts, and that the entire discussion is about said cuts, I would say that it was rather pertinent to discuss the cuts.
Secondly, you did respond to the issue of being for or against the cuts. Twice. Unless you would consider clarifying your position on being in favor of or against the cuts as not being a response. Don't try and claim you ignored the question when you responded all three times I asked it (none of them properly, however).
Thirdly, and most interestingly, the whole "Obama is using this to play up his fiscal responsibility" argument is itself a strawman. Show me any time when Obama claimed that he was fiscally responsible as a direct result of $100 million in cuts (and I mean from his mouth, not the pundits' mouths).
But the real point here is this, and if we can get away from arguing semantics for a bit, here's what I want to know: if in fact you are in favor of the cuts, why you continue to press this issue, and if you oppose the cuts, why you can't see that's a hypocritical position. Shoving your fingers in your ears and then trying to claim it was my fault you didn't listen isn't going to get us anywhere. Let's move on. Please.
Steve, why can't you just admit that spock beat you like a drum?
It must have something to do with your poor reading comprehension (which you have admitted), because everyone else that has commented on your latest round of nonsense agrees with spock and further agrees that you have been soundly pwned.
Do you really not understand that? Is there something physically wrong with you that either prevents your understanding or that makes you enjoy the abuse? Is it just that, as Scott has opined, you are an attention whore and you just want any form of attention, no matter how negative it is and how annoying it is to other people? Or is it that you're simply a stupid asshole?
PS: What are you linking to? Your links do not go to any posts made by me.
Yes, they do. Can you not read and understand your own name?
You're now at a point very similar to the criminal defendant who, when shown that his shoplifting was clearly caught on security camera, says, "That's not me."
There was no winner and there was no loser because there was no discussion! I raised topic A while SpeckoSpock raised topic B. Neither one of us addressed the other persons topic thus no discussion ever took place. There was a strawman argument put forth by speckospock.
Because neither one of us addressed the others topic there was no discussion. Since there was no discussion there can be no "winner" nor can anyone be pwned by what one of us said.
As to his links, they do not link to my posts when I click on them. When I click on the link from the last post :
Gibbs: $100 million is a large sum but a small part of the deficit, and is the first step in a series of cuts designed to reduce the deficit, and is only a short-term part of a solution.
Strawman: Obama is being a hypocrite by claiming he's being fiscally responsible because of a mere $100 million in cuts.
See the difference?
PS: see my previous post as to why the whole "strawman" thing is a false-premise fallacy.
There was no winner and there was no loser because there was no discussion! I raised topic A while SpeckoSpock raised topic B. Neither one of us addressed the other persons topic thus no discussion ever took place. There was a strawman argument put forth by speckospock.
Because neither one of us addressed the others topic there was no discussion. Since there was no discussion there can be no "winner" nor can anyone be pwned by what one of us said.
I put it to the forum:
Did speckospock beat Steve like a red-haired stepchild?
Comments
If you find comedy in seeing people pwn their own strawman arguments then I'm right there with you. Pass the popcorn.
We were told that they had WMDs in the first place, and that invading was the only way to stop them from applying those weapons to the US and her allies. There were none.
John McCain's campaign should remind you that the American public was told that we would be "welcomed as liberators", that we could do it with "smaller numbers" and that the "reconstruction would pay for itself." None of these were true.
If you don't believe this was was manufactured, then you are either grossly misinformed or rooted far too heavily in your opinions on the matter.
How retarded...small budget cuts over time can add up to big savings. You have to start somewhere. People need to quit bitching that the budget cuts aren't big enough. We will get there over time. Cutting things out gradually gives us time to transition.
Also, I am not anti-cloning for the record.
When did this thread become futanari baby making method with tentacles?
Also, this is hilarious.
Would Mr. Obama approve?
I know your game, and I'm willing to play it. If you continue to evade my question though, we'll get nowhere. I'll ask you a third time, and I expect a straight answer: are you or are you not opposed to the budget cuts?
Budget cuts is still a strawman because I never raised or responded to the issue of being for or against budget cuts. What I raised is the issue of trying to pass off a cut of $100 million from a budget of $3.6 trillion as "big money" or as indicative of a sign of fiscal conservatism. It was you who created the strawman when you wrote: This is the beginning of your strawman argument. An argument that you went on to attack with your blog post.
What can we learn from this? We can learn that you asked a question that was not pertinent to the point I made and then created a strawman argument after I ignored your question. This is just more of your strawman argument. Please show me where I railed against those in favor of $100 million in cuts.
First of all, should I have used sarcasm green? Was it not apparent that I was not seriously arguing you were in favor of golden toilets? However, that's beside the point. When I asked if you were opposed to the cuts, you responded directly with a shifty answer. Is it not then fair game to continue to discuss the issue that I had brought up and that you responded to directly? You're not the only one here, and just because you didn't raise a point doesn't mean it wasn't relevant. In fact, in light of the fact that you responded each time I asked about the cuts, and that the entire discussion is about said cuts, I would say that it was rather pertinent to discuss the cuts.
Secondly, you did respond to the issue of being for or against the cuts. Twice. Unless you would consider clarifying your position on being in favor of or against the cuts as not being a response. Don't try and claim you ignored the question when you responded all three times I asked it (none of them properly, however).
Thirdly, and most interestingly, the whole "Obama is using this to play up his fiscal responsibility" argument is itself a strawman. Show me any time when Obama claimed that he was fiscally responsible as a direct result of $100 million in cuts (and I mean from his mouth, not the pundits' mouths).
But the real point here is this, and if we can get away from arguing semantics for a bit, here's what I want to know: if in fact you are in favor of the cuts, why you continue to press this issue, and if you oppose the cuts, why you can't see that's a hypocritical position. Shoving your fingers in your ears and then trying to claim it was my fault you didn't listen isn't going to get us anywhere. Let's move on. Please.
PS: What are you linking to? Your links do not go to any posts made by me.
It must have something to do with your poor reading comprehension (which you have admitted), because everyone else that has commented on your latest round of nonsense agrees with spock and further agrees that you have been soundly pwned.
Do you really not understand that? Is there something physically wrong with you that either prevents your understanding or that makes you enjoy the abuse? Is it just that, as Scott has opined, you are an attention whore and you just want any form of attention, no matter how negative it is and how annoying it is to other people? Or is it that you're simply a stupid asshole? Yes, they do. Can you not read and understand your own name?
You're now at a point very similar to the criminal defendant who, when shown that his shoplifting was clearly caught on security camera, says, "That's not me."
There was no winner and there was no loser because there was no discussion! I raised topic A while SpeckoSpock raised topic B. Neither one of us addressed the other persons topic thus no discussion ever took place. There was a strawman argument put forth by speckospock.
Because neither one of us addressed the others topic there was no discussion. Since there was no discussion there can be no "winner" nor can anyone be pwned by what one of us said.
As to his links, they do not link to my posts when I click on them. When I click on the link from the last post : I end up going to a post by Jason: However, if I click on the link when I am not logged in I end up going to: Clearly there is a problem with the forums, why else would the same link take me to two different posts based upon whether or not I am logged in?
Strawman: Obama is being a hypocrite by claiming he's being fiscally responsible because of a mere $100 million in cuts.
See the difference?
PS: see my previous post as to why the whole "strawman" thing is a false-premise fallacy.
PPS: Are you opposed to the cuts?
Did speckospock beat Steve like a red-haired stepchild?
Was Steve soundly pwned by speck?