If failing to turn off your high beams is a crime, why does Jennifer Aniston still have a license?posted @ Wednesday, August 21, 2013 - 20:57
[quote][b]THX1138[/b] - @Harrison Bergeron: Perhaps you haven't read that many posts on this site but there are a lot of underlying tones of racism. Just because slurs aren't used doesnt make it not racist. Go ahead and neg me and then get back on your high horse with the rest of them.
I've read plenty of posts on this site and if I wanted to try to read people's minds I suppose I could make all kinds of unfair and unfounded accusations as you did against Lady of the Lake. However, I'm just not prone to prejudice. I'll take people at their word and go from there. The bottom line is that she did not say anything that any rational person could possibly construe as racist and that you accuse her absent any evidence says a great deal about you. You are the one on a high horse and, as a way to help you off it, I suggest you look up the definition of "bigot" before you start throwing stones.posted @ Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 20:43
[quote][b]THX1138[/b] - @Lady of the Lake: You apparently with your ignorant borderline racist views.
It was once advanced that "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels". Perhaps so. However, the modern refuge of the same is to accuse the opponent of racism. At the very least calling racism is certainly the first resort of those who have no worthwhile argument. This comment from THX1138 os one of the most telling examples. Here we have someone who struts around mouthing platitudes such as "all authority should be questioned". Yet when their standard-bearer gets questioned they respond with unfounded accusations and tired cliches.posted @ Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 20:16
This study has it all wrong. The Tea Party was invented by Dr. Peabody as a projection mirror for liberals. Whenever a liberal considers the Tea Party he projects himself onto it. For example, a liberal Democrat who is bought and paid for by special interests such as the Union Lobby, the Green Lobby, etc. sees a nefarious group created by lobbying interests. Or a supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement sees a group of violent, angry people. A supporter of President Obama, for example, sees a bunch of sheep who mindlessly support Limbaugh or Hannity or some other leader. In essence, when a liberal criticizes the Tea Party you can get rich betting that he is talking about himself.posted @ Monday, February 18, 2013 - 20:36
Double her salary (and her dignity if that is the measure of it) if she will agree to just go away.posted @ Monday, February 18, 2013 - 20:11
[quote][b]DanMatthews[/b] - Onlineathens commenters - judge, jury, District Attorney, and executioner and I am just holding my breath to see what you come back at me with
The terms "judge", "jury", "District Attorney" and "executioner" pertain to courts of law and the judicial system of which this forum is not a part. Rather than one of law, this is a court of opinion secured by the freedom of speech which should not be squelched.posted @ Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 13:17
@NXS: Really? Did they spell it with an I instead of dropping it to start with just the N? I should probably apologize for not noticing how clever you are.
If it is so important that your points get addressed, fine.
1) To point out that I am new to the site is irrelevant to all preceding discussions.
2) To point out (repeatedly) that my name is the same as the Kurt Vonnegut story is irrelevant to all preceding discussions.
3) To try to explain the Vonnegut story in one sentence (although it is not possible) is irrelevant to all preceding discussions.
4) To prattle on about Hank Rearden is irrelevant to all preceding discussions.
5) To compare Ayn Rand to the "right wing" is incorrect since there are many ways in which she diverges from them and doesn't really fit into any modern political movement. Probably Libertarian would be more accurate, but of course, being accurate is not on your radar so what's the point? It is, however, completely irrelevant to all preceding discussions.
6) I was not trying to be "moderate" or a "lefty" when I said that liberals are sheep. Your inability to offer a reasoned argument is manifest in every comment you have made, so you make the point yourself; perhaps I shouldn't have bothered. Since you quoting me mentioning that liberals like you are sheep is redundant, it is essentially irrelevant.
7) That Hillary Clinton looked smug in her testimony is my individual interpretation. I don't read any blogs so your accusation is not only unfounded but also untrue. However, your constant attempts to accuse me of following some pundit or news show is revealing. In the professional world this is called "projection". See previous references to sheep. Anyway, since I couldn't even name a person in the "right-wing blogosphere" and it wouldn't matter if I could, this is completely irrelevant to all preceding discussions.
8 ) It's not so much that you made an assumption that my views are "right wing" it is that everything you post is an attempt to attack me personally rather than make an argument in favor of something you believe or endorse, whatever that may be. We'll never know since all you do is make assumptions about me and then attack the figment of your imagination. This is also typical of the left in that politics are personal rather than intellectual. In addition to pathetic, ineffective and lame, this is irrelevant to all preceding discussions
9) Pologize was the one who called people "childish". I was merely quoting him so if this is relevant to anything you will have to take it up with him. As far as I am concerned, this is irrelevant to all preceding discussions.
10) I don't throw out epithets, I ridicule ignorant people who insist on antagonizing me even though they are completely incapable of defending themselves. I don't like doing it. I have implored you to stop asking for it, but as long as you ask to be whipped who am I to stop whipping you? Ridiculing you is an over-riding theme but as far as the shooting in Texas (remember where this all started?) it is completely irrelevant.
11) What's up with sock puppets? I don't know what kind of weird things you do with your socks and I really (I mean really) don't want to know. But it is irrelevant to all preceding discussions.
12) I've responded to all the posts. I didn't initially respond to this because, as anyone who has suffered through all these posts from you can attest, this is really absurd and has gone on long enough.
I think thos fairly well covers your little bullet points but if I have left anything out please let me know. I am sure you will since you can't seem to stop begging me to ridicule and humiliate you. Hopefully you have had enough and you will stop this so I will close with some sincere advice.
Stop trying to insult people and start actually taking them seriously and see what they have to say. Do this especially if they disagree with you since you are not very well educated and you can probably learn a lot from them. Also, stop trying to engage in battles of wit. You aren't very good at it and maybe playing it straight would serve you better. Lastly, instead of invoking the names of great thinkers and writers such as Kurt Vonnegut and Ayn Rand and throwing out their names as if doing so constitutes an arguement, why don't you actually pick up a book and read it? You might learn something.
.posted @ Monday, January 28, 2013 - 20:47
@NXS: The point being that liberals like to demand "tolerance" from others but are not so good at providing the same courtesy. There is a difference between ridiculing in complete sentences and name calling. Similarly there is a difference between replying with a clever, witty or at least interesting rejoinder and replying with a spew of non-sense epithets that have no relevance at all. When you reply what comes to mind is the notion that some people are in charge of keyboards who shouldn't even be in charge of brooms. Lastly, if you don't like what I say to you why don't you quit posting to me? I find you a tiresome cretin and was fine to leave it be after I wiped the floor with you last week. But like an inveterate masochist you keep coming back for more.posted @ Monday, January 28, 2013 - 17:38
ABH wingnuts unite! There's a new Teabagger in town, but don't call him right-wing... kind of gets his panties in a wad over that.
Here is a funny thing about NXS. He is not very literate. For example as we post to an article about intolerance by saying that liberals are not very tolerant NXS logs on to post comment to prove that liberals are not very tolerant. One would think he could at least recognize that his post proves my point. But since name calling is all he has what can one expect?posted @ Sunday, January 27, 2013 - 19:55
@NXS: Looks like someone who took his name from a band whose singer died of auto-erotic asphyxiation is having a hard time getting over the whipping he received last week. You make no point worth responding to in your little bullet points. All you do is call names which is more pathetic than anything else.posted @ Sunday, January 27, 2013 - 19:44
Well, if they add "NO STUPIDITY", that'll be enough to exclude you.
Cute pcture. I presume this is how you show your intolerance for poor spellers. I remember second grade when it was considered a valid argument to call someone stupid and to show you really, really mean it by putting it in all capital letters as well. That's about the level of education and maturity to be expected from a liberal.posted @ Sunday, January 27, 2013 - 17:23
No one says it's a sin. It's a sin to believe oneself superior because of those traits and act on that belief in ways that hurt others. [/quote]
Now that's a real laugher. A liberal saying is it is a sin "to believe oneself superior". If this is the case then there must be a long line at the confessional booth of the church of the American left. Then again, no sincere penance can be offered by hypocrites, so they likely wouldn't bother.posted @ Sunday, January 27, 2013 - 17:10
[quote][b]hitman[/b] - this sucks... thses guys can not sell it out like a rap artist could.. Jay Z, or Lil Wayne, Drake,Mariah Carey, Beyonce,many more to name just to many. This town always having big stuff for these crusty crappy folks and they the ones who leave the town dirty as crap after 2am.
Hitman, grammar aside, I don't doubt that some of those acts would sell out this venue. I question the notion afterwards, that the town would be spic and span.posted @ Sunday, January 27, 2013 - 10:39
No intolerance and no hatred? How are they going to keep the liberals out?posted @ Sunday, January 27, 2013 - 10:28
@Pologize: You are like a bad cold that just won't go away. But I think you are doing a good job of proving my point.
The point is not that Condoleezza Rice disagreed with the war or with the WMD assessment but that she was not Secretary of State at the time....In other words she was not in the same position as Hillary Clinton. That you post this indicates that you have dismissed the entire context of the discussion. So add one more to "check your facts". In the future please pay attention to the discussion.
Additionally, your quoted comment from Rice came after the war as she even references ""up until March 2003" in it. So it does not even address the time period in which we could say about her that she was guilty of "giving false information to the American public DID happen on Condaleeza Rice's watch and as a result we started a war in Iraq that cost us a lot of lives and a kazillion dollars". Across the board you are just simply wrong and, to quote a verbose (if not very astute person) "that's probably what politicians want".
Giving false information to the American public DID happen on Condaleeza Rice's watch and as a result we started a war in Iraq that cost us a lot of lives and a kazillion dollars. [/quote]
I presume you refer to the whole weapons of mass destruction business. But here we go again with the ignorance. Please check your facts before posting. Rice was Secretary of State in Bush's second term. The Iraq war was started in the first term and the Secretary of State at that time was Colin Powell.posted @ Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 09:44
@NXS: Speaking of "childish" as from Pologize's previous post. You know precious little about my "world view" and whether it is "right wing" or not. You also make baseless assumptions. I watch very little television outside of sports so you can take your silly Fox News comments elsewhere. Since that seems to be your main point of contention you might be better off talking to someone to whom it actually applies. However, it offers great proof that the epithet "liberal sheep" certainly does apply to you as all I am reading here are talking points from the bottom of the barrel of leftist politics.
Other than an angry prattling screed there is not much of substance to reply to here. Rand Paul was quite critical of the previous administration so your comments regarding him are flat wrong. Rand Paul opposed the invasion of Iraq if you must know.
The endless accusation that the video was the cause of the attack was pure political spin from the administration but is not actually the primary problem that should be addressed. The primary problem is why did Hillary and the State Department ignore repeated requests for greater security prior to the attack. This is the essence and was what Rand Paul was addressing to her. However, you might calm down about it all because the whole point is that no one will be held accountable. Your precious Hillary will not be hung out to dry.
Your point about Condaleeza Rice and Iraq doesn't even make sense so not much to comment on there.
I would say you pretty much fit the description of someone lacking a faculty of reason. No, not everyone who disagress with me does. Not by any means. From you there is only the blather of an inchoate rage comprised of baseless accusations and a fifth grade level analysis of events whch fits the bill perfectly.
Both parties are guilty of this childish bickering and thought process. When you point the finger at liberals you are only joining in on the circus yourself. The childish mentality of Washington infects many citizens and that's probably what politicians want. [/quote]
In my comment I was harsh toward both parties and politicians in particular and I think rightly so. It is true that Republicans are more generally held accountable for their stupidities and that it is a common tactic for Democrats and liberals to try to shift blame to any Republican or Conservative who has made the mistake of agreeing with supporting a signature leftist policy. But the main thrust is that one ought to hold politicians accountable for these policies. As far as the left/right aspect take a look at the smug Secretary of State who is testifying to Congress over Benghazi. She is smug because she knows she will not be held accountable. However, if that was Condaleeza Rice and the same thing happened on her watch she would already have been canned. And holding politicians accountable for either gun free school zones, silly attempts at controlling gun ownership among the law abiding and the deaths of four people in Libya is absolutely NOT "what politicians want".posted @ Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 18:16
I'll be watching this one as a bellwether for my lawsuit against the lumber industry for the so-called 2X4s I just bought.posted @ Wednesday, January 23, 2013 - 13:55
[quote][b]Save our Republic[/b] -
Shhhh, In reality, I knew that...I just wanted to see if Dan "The Billboard Man" would admit it!
In order for Dan to admit it he would first have to realize it. That's like asking for sentience from a house plant.posted @ Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 20:52
[quote][b]Save our Republic[/b] -
OK, It wouldn't be the only bad legislation that came from 41. What is your point?
The point is that anytime a Republican does something stupid liberals point to it so as to say: "See, we're not stupid. A Republican did it, too!". To the liberal sheep this is a convincing argument. To those of us possessing a faculty of reason it is the act of a self-serving politician pretending to address a problem.posted @ Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 20:10
@mpd0.59: Ayn Rand was repulsed by homosexuality so you might want to do a little research before posting assumptions. As for "gay rights" - it is an absurdity. The concept of rights applies only to individual human beings. I believe that gay people are individuals and have the same rights as any other individual. The only way to believe in "gay rights" is to believe one of two things. One is that gays are not human beings. Or to believe that we need to have as many different kinds of rights as there are kinds of people and that each person could have an endless collection of rights. For example, in the Village People alone you have construction worker and gay rights, policeman and gay rights, indian chief and gay rights and so on. Such a concept of "rights" actually means there are no rights.
As for abortion I believe a woman has a right to abortion. This is, as you note, consistent with the views of Ayn Rand.
@barryhollander: Which is a very good point. I don't think I would call myself a Republican but I damn sure don't vote for Democrats...and on top of that I am an atheist. If I were elected president I would take my oath of office on a copy of Atlas Shrugged.posted @ Monday, January 21, 2013 - 21:47
Now that is pathetic. Is this the Red&Black?posted @ Monday, January 21, 2013 - 21:33
Summary: I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having the place to myself. I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having the place to myself. read more
As you might imagine, the vast