RANT: The Clone Wars

[PeterGibbons316]

You have officially entered into lying and being two-faced territory. You're acting shameful. So far you've called me a hack, liberal, "latte-drinking", too young to be right, and any word/argument imaginable to belittle my point as being partisan leftist. I implore you to find me ONE post in my entire history calling you or anyone on the opposite side of this issue a "a conservative gun toting redneck" or anything similar to attack their position. Just one post. For acting like such a moral arbiter interested in healthy debate, you engage in nothing but dirt throwing.

.....

I just refuse to debate with people who live in a different world.

Napoleon used to say never interfere with the opponent while he's in the process of destroying himself.

.....

I'm not above arguing with anyone. I have however been taught that there are moments in which it's more advantageous for me to save my breath and shut my mouth while those with the "facts" and "wisdom" proceed to make absolute fools of themselves

Sorry, but you can't respond to a well thought out political post by simply calling someone a fool or suggesting that they live in a different world and expect to be taken seriously without offering any reasoning as to why you would make such a claim.

Either participate in the debate or do not. What you are doing is exactly as Vox suggests: drive-by pot shots with no substance.

[400Lb Gorilla]

In the cities you generally won't encounter anything worse than a cockroach. Although they do get pretty bloody big here too.
I grew up in the country, and there are some nasty things around. Best way to avoid getting injured or killed is to just walk away.



A gun won't do much good against a snake or spider. They are too fast and too small a target. If one is close enough to shoot and still enough to shoot its generally going to be because its already latched onto you.

If a croc is coming after you, again, the point at which you'd be ready to use a gun it would be too close and too late. Crocs are sneaky buggers.

I read this post in a kind of Steve Irwin voice

[mrmrbill000008]

... gun law stuff ...

TBH, I don't think there's much to worry about. Even in SF, anti-gun laws have been passed here a couple times only to be struck down and repealed first time someone actually tried enforcing them. Most recent was Proposition H (... heh...). If yea can't get a gun law to stick in SF, I figure the rest of the country is safe. Valid point, though, that we should be diligent in defending the rights rather than litigate it afterwards.

See how it played out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_H_(2005)

[adamdavidson47]

Lol I wish! Harder when you have muscle and aren't just a mound of gelatinous blubber like your manlet self.

+Dom yea man goal is to get down to 225/235.

Fuk you, I got muscle.

[kvk1]

Sorry, but you can't respond to a well thought out political post by simply calling someone a fool or suggesting that they live in a different world and expect to be taken seriously without offering any reasoning as to why you would make such a claim.

Either participate in the debate or do not. What you are doing is exactly as Vox suggests: drive-by pot shots with no substance.

This makes sense if the debate you're referring to was only done in the last 3 pages and not the past 15 threads. If you're going to act like this is all from today's happenings and I never had an argument with people in here in the past you either weren't here regularly enough, or you're doing the same thing Vox is right now.

Edit: There is no "debate" in here. There's people throwing back and forth the talking points of their respective echo chambers. Let's not act like this is an Oxfordian Forum.

Edit #2: Can you refer me to the "well thought out political post" please? Was it this one: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...post1011446973

[PeterGibbons316]

Lol I wish! Harder when you have muscle and aren't just a mound of gelatinous blubber like your manlet self.

+Dom yea man goal is to get down to 225/235.

You would be a freaking beast at 235. Do it.

[medjen]

I read this post in a kind of Steve Irwin voice

This makes it about a thousand times more awesome.

[VoxExMachina]

Valid point, though, that we should be diligent in defending the rights rather than litigate it afterwards.

Yea, you can never count on the fact that common sense will rule the day when it comes to politics. Usually best to make your voice heard. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.

I'm still very interested to see what comes out of Congress, though. The media has been putting the full court press on this lately, and I don't doubt their ability to sway a lot of people uneducated on the subject. It all sounds "reasonable" if you don't know the facts.

[Final_Rep]

Fuk you, I got muscle.

Jaws don't count.

[VoxExMachina]

Edit: There is no "debate" in here. There's people throwing back and forth the talking points of their respective echo chambers. Let's not act like this is an Oxfordian Forum.

Kavak, I like you and don't want any bad blood. I was responding originally to a post by Chaz, and only replied to you relative to the "outstanding" comment. If you were agreeing with me, and I misunderstood, I apologize.

But I have, in fact, detailed FACTS, not just "talking points" re: the "assault weapon" issue. You may not like those facts, but data is data unless you have some other point or information to present.

[PeterGibbons316]

This makes sense if the debate you're referring to was only done in the last 3 pages and not the past 15 threads. If you're going to act like this is all from today's happenings and I never had an argument with people in here in the past you either weren't here regularly enough, or you're doing the same thing Vox is right now.

Edit: There is no "debate" in here. There's people throwing back and forth the talking points of their respective echo chambers. Let's not act like this is an Oxfordian Forum.

I'm referring specifically to the past 3 pages. We've engaged in debate in the past, and when you actually debate I find the discussion to be very healthy and informative. While we rarely agree I can respect your opinions as they always seem to be well thought out.

And you are right, it's a freaking chat thread, and I think most of us consider each other friends here despite our disagreements. But you must know that the frustration Vox has given you by lashing out is felt by everyone else when you take those little pot-shots while refusing to truly participate in the discussion. So again - either give us your full argument, and have an open and honest discussion.....or just don't post anything at all. Your pot-shots are nothing but trolling, and do little to further the discussion.

[VoxExMachina]

Edit #2: Can you refer me to the "well thought out political post" please? Was it this one: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...post1011446973

Incidentally, that was an opinion, and I stand by it.

[400Lb Gorilla]

This makes it about a thousand times more awesome.

I do the same thing with Dom's and Ozzy's posts too except a less excited Aussie accent. PM is the only one that gets the Steve Irwin "excited over everything" voice

[Miketoc]

Fuk you, I got muscle.

Ha!

Just read your journal.

u srs about cutting to 225 bish? r u a bit cray cray?

Read mine! :angry:

Oh, I don't think that. Nobody could pull that off at this point. But it's entirely possible that there might have been something with a little more teeth to it on the table.

Maybe, maybe not. But it's rarely wise to base your opinion and argument on what might have been.

If you want to get real angry, have a look at this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...tability-abuse

There was a recent supremo decision that gives you a retrial if your lawyer boners up the plea bargain. Pretty huge deal. It'd be interesting to see how new legislation plays out regarding what leverage prosecutors can use to help their plea bargains. I'm actually indifferent, if things get forced back to trial vs plea bargains it is what it is.

[mrmrbill000008]

Yea, you can never count on the fact that common sense will rule the day when it comes to politics. Usually best to make your voice heard. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that.

Everybody judges CA by what they hear coming out of LA/SF -- the squeaky, highly-represented in the press, wheel.

IRL, the other 90% of the state is closer to Farley than Feinstein.

[im2manly]

Jaws don't count.

Because he sucks dick amirite?

[therorschach]

bean heads

What's your french press, bro?

[kvk1]

And you are right, it's a freaking chat thread, and I think most of us consider each other friends here despite our disagreements. But you must know that the frustration Vox has given you by lashing out is felt by everyone else when you take those little pot-shots while refusing to truly participate in the discussion. So again - either give us your full argument, and have an open and honest discussion.....or just don't post anything at all. Your pot-shots are nothing but trolling, and do little to further the discussion.

No. That's absurd. Calling somebody out for referring to the POTUS as a "great socialist" is neither absurd nor is it a "pot shot." It's like the dingbats who used to call Bush "Hitler" for Iraq. Pointing out why that is a stupid thing to say is neither a "pot shot" nor does it warrant a debate as to why it's stupid. In fact, THAT is the kind of rhetoric that reduces the discussion to a "troll" level. I've done my share of fair debating in here. In some instances I was right, in some I was wrong. But over the past one or two threads the civility went completely down to 0 and people began arguing just to win. I refuse to partake in any kindling/continuation of that. But that doesn't mean I won't scoff at something ridiculous if I see it. If you believe that me posting a single "Outstanding" at somebody's baseless claim and refusing to get mired in a useless 50 page debate about it is trolling, then we have two very different definitions of the word.

[kvk1]

But I have, in fact, detailed FACTS, not just "talking points" re: the "assault weapon" issue. You may not like those facts, but data is data unless you have some other point or information to present.

Can you please, PLEASE, show me a single post where I made a sole AWB my position? Or that I was 100% anti-gun?

Can you show me any evidence of me taking a "take all your guns away" or "sucking on Feinstein's tits" kind of position?

On what are you basing "not liking/arguing with/against data/facts" when you make a statement like that?

Edit: Throughout this entire clusterfuck this is the only "specific" post I made on the issue:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...#post994723753

Because of similar concerns to this:

I enjoy debating that's all. I'd rather not reveal my position (unless I already have) because that will hinder my efforts to argue against what I believe, to keep the argument going.

However, I'm still getting ad-hominem'd up the ass for being this 2nd amendment hating Feinstein fanboy.

THAT is why I refuse to get in any legitimate debate here. I'm not the problem.

[therorschach]

Can you please, PLEASE, show me a single post where I made a sole AWB my position? Or that I was 100% anti-gun?

Can you show me any evidence of me taking "take all your guns away" or "sucking on Feinstein's tits" kind of position?

On what are you basing "not liking/arguing with/against data/facts" when you make a statement like that?

Shut up, liberal. Why don't you stop libbing for once, you liberal libbing libby dibby liberalling Lib Lib.

Libs gonna lib.

[GREENFEATHER]

Fuk you, I got muscle.

You ain't got teh time, money or dick to be fukn ANYONE in this thread.

[Final_Rep]

Because he sucks dick amirite?

hah! I was actually just thinking diet, but that works.

You ain't got teh time, money or dick to be fukn ANYONE in this thread.

This brought serious, actual, lols.

[Final_Rep]

Apparently the Dutch have found out that taking poop out of one person and putting that poop into another, sick, person, will cure the sick person.

I do not wish to know how or why they first came up with/tested this practice.

[theshoupguy]

Yeah I still don't care what happens with the whole gun thing, just don't bring back SOPA or I will fuk shit up.

Me too. Don't mess with our internets, govvie fckers.

I have like 4 growlers, breh.

yearrrrrrrrrrrd.

I will be heading to a nice little microbrewery on Saturday, and I shall return to my abode with half a gallon of perfectly chilled brew.
I am excite.

YEARD POWER

I've never really been a fan of hot & sour soup.

Same. The sour part seems weird.

people are arguing about the same fckign issues over and over again.

it's a waste of time.

Chicken has its place on some pizzas. Just not authentic pizza.

The URL alone would trigger it, I bet. We aren't permitted to view gun stuff.

+



inb4 shoup is better, you suck, your kids will suck, and their kids will suck, and you're a worthless turd-gargling buffoon who makes even AD look good

+Turd gargling sounds gross.

[mrmrbill000008]

re: "POTUS as Hitler/Socialist/Organ Grinder Monkey"

POTUS is always fair target for name-calling vilification: that's his job -- it's in the job reqs. An American tradition since the Great Beginning. Just ask Lincoln about pleasing all of the people, all of the time.

[theshoupguy]

So with that logic a decadeard is also a thing.

I wonder if a centurieard exists.

I believe this is a fine specimen of the decadeard:


I don't know if the centeard exists. Maybe on a dead guy.

Thanks.

[VoxExMachina]

Can you please, PLEASE, show me a single post where I made a sole AWB my position? Or that I was 100% anti-gun?

Can you show me any evidence of me taking a "take all your guns away" or "sucking on Feinstein's tits" kind of position?

Look, I'm not going to get into arguing against your strawmen. I never claimed that you were 100% anti-gun. I think I know where you stand - exactly where Obama says he stands. But if you'd like to clarify your position on that particular subject, answer this: based on the facts at hand, do you, or do you not support congress banning "assault weapons" and magazines over 10 rounds as Obama called for yesterday?

Second, I didn't call Obama the Great Socialist. I said that I have agreed with a lot of what he's said in the past, and even where I didn't agree, I generally thought he was well spoken and made good points. Up to now Obamacare was my only real sticking point with him, because I feel it's a bad idea. But with this Assault Weapon thing he's lost a lot of credibility in my eyes, pushing a far-left "socialist" agenda based on skewed facts and a bunch of political smoke and mirrors.

If you don't like my opinion of Obama, fine. But I haven't heard you say: "I agree with him about X and X, because...." You just post crap like "outstanding" or links to various political articles taking jabs and some Republican group or another. That's hardly being constructive.

But again, I don't want there to be bad blood between us.

[Final_Rep]

+Turd gargling sounds gross.

Goal achieved then.

Vox: There is more than one axis to the political spectrum.

Socialism and gun control aren't on the same one.

Edit:



So I suppose it depends on how you define "socialism". I've always defined it in the economic sense, so the left-right axis on this chart. Gun control then would be on the up-down axis, and people who want to take away our rights are authoritarian, vs. people who think we should be allowed keep them, who would be libertarian.

At least that's my interpretation. I could see how it might be debated, perhaps as a result of semantics, in many different ways.

Edit 2:



Allow me to invoke Godwin's Law for a moment. The above graph shows Hitler on the Authoritarian side, but basically economically moderate. Hitler, IIRC, took guns away from the Jews. So perhaps the interpretation is that taking away rights is authoritarian, and that would mean the Dems today are acting somewhere near the upper left of the map.

Edit 3: I guess I'm just rambling. In reality though, the Dems are nowhere near the upper left, relative to how it's defined in an absolute sense.

Edit 4: See this: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 -- That's a pretty interesting conclusion.

[kvk1]

But again, I don't want there to be bad blood between us.

You're reading things that aren't there and speaking past me. You probably feel I'm doing the same.

I don't want things to get sour in this thread with anybody where it's unrecoverable from.

However, I will continue to post anything I please.

I'm not breaking any rules, and with all due respect, you can't just tell me not to post a link to something because I don't have an accompanying debate with it, or that it only portrays one side.

We've jumped that shark long ago in this thread where we can have that level of discourse. EVERYBODY is posting to their own position. Let's not delude ourselves.

[VoxExMachina]

Goal achieved then.

Vox: There is more than one axis to the political spectrum.

I'm aware of that. Really didn't think we needed to get into Myers-Briggs personality types and Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and all that in a Rant debate. Anyway, I prefer an X-Axis spanning from Red Blooded American to Full Retard.

Your ranking on this scale largely depends on your level of alignment to my views.