Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 98

Thread: Jluy 4th Thread

  1. #41
    IncGamers Member Stevinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    chicagoland
    Posts
    5,003

    Re: Jluy 4th Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    I can live pretty well with the definition of a socialist is different from here over there, so we are constantly battling over terms and sometimes refuse to accept that the one means oranges when talking about apples. I just don't like it if he says that my apples are oranges as well... and vice versa, of course.
    It's not just that you have different definitions, you're talking about a specific spot on two different axis.

    Jmerv's spectrum just isn't the same. He claims it's individualism vs collectivism, but then supports more power for churches and corporations. so when he uses big government - small government terms, you think he's talking about X and he's really talking about Y (which is more cultural, and not necessarily big vs. small government).

    You don't seem to have the same concern. When you see the word "social", you think the power is brought closer to the people--which sometimes puts you in agreement with jmerv, but you can't identify it because he's very caught up in his labels.


    This is why stillman can't grasp how Jmerv says "his side" is losing when the GOP has held more offices over those 40 years. Ask yourself which side is he talking about. His side is conformity, and groupthink. That's why he's all wrapped up in shame (which really means shunning). When the church has power, if you disobey the church they could use that "shame" (shunning--aka excommunication) to ruin you, so you lived in constant fear of annoying the church. When government supplants that power and now they can destroy you, it annoys Jmerv not because that type of power is wrong to have, but because it's held by non-religious people who have different ideas about what's right and wrong. If the church loses the power to determine right and wrong, the mighty shunning is then ineffective. This is Jmerv's idea of freedom. The problem is not that our lives are dominated by a huge faceless entity, but that we're being dominated by the WRONG large faceless entity. So yes. his side is losing. And he's right, the growing size and scope and power of government is too much, but that's where everything gets lost. See his idea of freedom doesn't resemble any idea of freedom you or I have.




  2. #42
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,222

    Re: Jluy 4th Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Simply put, your European definition (and more specifically, attempting to differentiate so-called "social democracy" doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and it never did. The definition of a socialist, simply put, is someone who believes in the power and validity of central planning; the opposite of individualism.
    But social democrats don't believe in central planning and BTW, socialism is about more than that.



    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

  3. #43
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: Jluy 4th Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    but then supports more power for churches and corporations.
    That's a despicable lie. My estimation of you has just slipped downward another notch. I've never supported increasing power for churches or corporations, I simply opposed ramping up the State power already dominating theirs in ever-increasing fashion, which is what you have stated support for previously. Churches and corporations have voluntary membership and cannot impose their will over you, but the State can and routinely does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    when the GOP has held more offices over those 40 years.
    More dishonesty. You saw the charts I shot this down with already; if you're trying to throw the loop wide enough to consider elected dog-catchers, I still doubt you'll have more Republicans in office than Democrats over the last 40 without cherry-picking. Progressives are generally Democrats, and Republicans aren't the party of big Gov't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    His side is conformity, and groupthink.
    That does it. You're not just lying viciously about me, you're ascribing to me the very behaviors which I consider far beyond personal insult; no more Mr. Nice Guy. If my side is conformity, why was I spitting at you for being a lock-step Progressive who lied to himself and others about it? As for groupthink, considering that's one of the favorite commie bag o'tricks that I routinely take dumps on, it's even more insulting - and which you're completely guilty of it as shown here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    That's why he's all wrapped up in shame (which really means shunning).
    Ah, there we go - so all this is really about your self-indulgent, misogynistic attitudes and selfish personal ethics. You can't stand your maturity and manhood being discussed and judged as shameful. So what you really want is to slander me since I pointed it out previously and then beat you raw with what is your inherently juvenile dishonesty and desire for irresponsibility.

    I hadn't realized it stung so deeply that you were bearing a grudge. No wonder they'd left you; for the most part, women aren't interested in being treated like a dishtowel rather than as potential wives and mothers. Incidentally, the majority of men don't try to be gigolos either; perhaps you can use the "genes" excuse next time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    but because it's held by non-religious people who have different ideas about what's right and wrong.
    i.e. people like you, who while pretending that morals can exist in a social vacuum, think these results are just peachy as long as you can screw who you like sans repercussions:

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenda Shafer
    I stood at the doctor’s side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby’s heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby’s body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby’s body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby’s head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors and he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen.


    *********************************************
    You honestly did piss me off with these false accusations and projection; I'm not play-acting as I usually do. I wouldn't punch below the belt about your love life had you not. I don't squelch or report people aside from truly rare occasions, but you went far beyond the pale there.
    *********************************************

    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    But social democrats don't believe in central planning
    That's obviously not true, if you think about it. Who's going to distribute the centralized social benefits? Who's going to decide the people who get to sit on the "death panels"? Just because we're not talking a single megalomaniac dictator hardly means European governments are somehow not performing centralized planning; they're certainly not allowing market forces to dictate affairs. Are you somehow trying to assert that the Euro is a capitalist construct?
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    BTW, socialism is about more than that.
    Sure, but underneath all the bull, it remains where some people are thinking that choices are made better on behalf of the whole, in a centralized fashion (of some stripe) than individually. Usually people like Steve, who doesn't want individuals to have power to think things that go against his beliefs.




  4. #44
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,222

    Re: Jluy 4th Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    That's obviously not true, if you think about it. Who's going to distribute the centralized social benefits
    The social insurances were introduced in the 1880 by Bismarck, a sworn enemy of socialists. I think I mentioned it a couple of times already.

    Who's going to decide the people who get to sit on the "death panels"?
    I don't understand what you mean here.

    they're certainly not allowing market forces to dictate affairs.
    Socialists don't allow the markets to decide on anything at all. You can hardly say that about social democrats. If you do, you could call everybody a socialist.

    Is the US arms industry allowed to sell their weaponry to North Korea? Why not let the market decide and let them sell it to whoever pays the most? If the US don't want them to be sold to every villain in the world, they could outbid them or threaten with striking the industry off their list of suppliers of the army. Instead they disallow it by decree. That's fine for me and fine for you, but with a bit of a devil's advocate reasoning it could be called socialism.

    Are you somehow trying to assert that the Euro is a capitalist construct?
    It's certainly not a socialistic one. There is no socialism among European nations. The main reasons for introducing the Euro weren't of an economical nature (even though it had a lot of benefits of that kind), but a political construct. Some people say that Germany agreed in order to get the support of France regarding the reunification in 1990 ( which couldn't be taken for granted even after the fraternization of both nations) and the Germans were obviously willing to offer a lot for it at the right opportunity.



    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

  5. #45
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: Jluy 4th Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    The social insurances were introduced in the 1880 by Bismarck, a sworn enemy of socialists. I think I mentioned it a couple of times already.
    Just as Hitler's socialists eventually became sworn enemies of Stalin's socialists. I think we've mentioned that more than once, as well. Does this somehow mean WW2 never happened?
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    I don't understand what you mean here.
    Without the joke, someone decides who gets your medical treatment and to what degree. Now, the "National Socialism" implementing it can use commercial insurance companies as the implementing mechanism, as is the case with much of the American system, or it can be true "single payer", but it's still not a free market.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    Socialists don't allow the markets to decide on anything at all. You can hardly say that about social democrats. If you do, you could call everybody a socialist.
    Now you're starting to get my point. Yes, any time you prevent free market economics from functioning, you're indulging (or at least dabbling) in socialism.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    Is the US arms industry allowed to sell their weaponry to North Korea? Why not let the market decide and let them sell it to whoever pays the most?
    As is the case with Germany arming Iran, and before that, Iraq. Face it, kris, even social democracy is a scam and the market will eventually rule - the same reason that the COMINTERN recognized that "World Socialism" is the only viable solution to their problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    Instead they disallow it by decree. That's fine for me and fine for you, but with a bit of a devil's advocate reasoning it could be called socialism.
    Obviously not, since North Korea is armed and outfitted by China - America only feeds the hermit kingdom. It can be argued, though perhaps not with validity, that free market economics are actually far more effective weapons since they bypass socialist efforts like North Korea and Cuba so efficiently; North Korea only survives because the U.N. keeps it alive, much as it does the Palestinian Intefatah.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    There is no socialism among European nations.
    Oh, come ON! That's a Steve-sized whopper. What else do you call state-run (centrally planned) schemes such as utilities and health care, supported by massive taxation? The only reason you've managed to maintain it so long is that America was picking up your national defense tabs, and the atrophied state which those have entered was made obvious in Tripoli. Also, since you wanted to dig up poor Bismark - your elderly are reliant upon a support structure which can't exist in an ever-shrinking populace, and once the Muslims responsible for much of your population distribution maintenance start flexing their muscle, you're due for a severe implosion as they decide they don't really want their taxes going to support a huge crowd of geriatric dhimmi.

    Note that I'm NOT trying to pretend that America hasn't entered that same downward spiral - just that you're deeper in the funnel than we are. We're facing the same problem as the Democrat party tries to guarantee illegal aliens the right to vote - in trying to achieve one-party rule for the future, they've guaranteed economic apocalypse.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    The main reasons for introducing the Euro weren't of an economical nature (even though it had a lot of benefits of that kind), but a political construct.
    Well, sure; socialism is insane once you realize what the full ramifications are. Now you're bailing out your komerades in Greece, Spain, Italy... after all, you are on the "from each according to their capability" side.




  6. #46
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,222

    Re: Jluy 4th Thread

    Regarding socialism, we are back to your apples versus my oranges, that's not worth debating. In particular, I'm fed up with pointing out the difference between socialism (i.e. what happened in the GDR) and e.g. social democrats.

    Regarding Greece, the point is that they don't get their problems solved on their own. If they want us to help them, they should heed a few more of the advice of others and make them come true. Instead they simply remain in their state of misery, point at a few alibi solutions for the easy problems and blame us for being in it. If somebody spends more than he can afford, he will have to cut spending or increase the income. Demanding more money more quickly and becoming angry if others are reluctant will not be of help to solve the problems, but increase them.

    Needless to say, German tourists are reluctant to travel to Greece if rotten tomatoes are thrown at them or if the newspapers there are full of mindless and dumb nazi comparisons. Dear common Greek man, don't listen to those who tell you these things, they just tell them because they believe that you want to hear them, as a distraction from their own failures. You have your problems because you listened too much to them during the elections. Don't expect us to pay a single cent to avoid serving as your culprits. Better find them among your own decision makers and and make them do something useful. However, I'm also a bit embarrassed about the arrogance which a few German politicians here deal with the whole issue.

    BTW, help for Greece means paying the banks and I'm completely unwilling to help the banks out of a misery of their own choosing. They took the higher interest ratings because of the higher risk and now, as Greek cannot pay anymore, we cover the losses of the banks? No way. I would rather support Greece in saying "Dear banks, we cannot pay, so we won't pay". The banks will not lend them further money then, of course, but that's the part which Greece will have to live with then.



    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

  7. #47
    IncGamers Member Stevinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    chicagoland
    Posts
    5,003

    Re: Jluy 4th Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    That's a despicable lie. My estimation of you has just slipped downward another notch. I've never supported increasing power for churches or corporations, I simply opposed ramping up the State power already dominating theirs in ever-increasing fashion, which is what you have stated support for previously. Churches and corporations have voluntary membership and cannot impose their will over you, but the State can and routinely does.
    you're really going to get mad because we differ politically? I hope you get over it. political threads are specifically for disagreeing. otherwise they'd all be very short.

    Anyway, I felt confident saying that because you supported citizens united, got all worked up because I don't go to a church and am unconvinced that the church really has a clue about the nature and or existence of god. You support the church's political positions as gospel (pun intended), and you fell generally against any employee or consumer protections. When faced with any issue that pits the church (or christianity in general) against really anything, you've chosen the church. And when it came to unlimited corporate power (which includes purchasing legislation), you always seem to support corporations. You're just mad because someone called you out on it.

    And as for imposing their will over us, well if they can buy and influence law, then they can impose their will over us--just like big unions do. And if you think that churches and corporations don't have the same groupthink and "propaganda" (we called it marketing or public relations) motors that government has, I think you have it backwards. I've been in the meetings where they train the troops (us lowly branch people) to go out and spread the bank's message. I've gotten the same tired arguments from religious folk about hows and whys. Frankly, you're one of the more interesting because you actually know a lot about your faith. I don't know if your employer has you doing damage control, but believe me, we've all had to tow a company line in our lives and they do teach you to groupthink. I've sold more damage in corporate nonsense than I ever did in bad loans. Power doesn't come from the end of a gun. Power comes from the ability to get others to convince others to convince others to point those guns for you.

    More dishonesty. You saw the charts I shot this down with already; if you're trying to throw the loop wide enough to consider elected dog-catchers, I still doubt you'll have more Republicans in office than Democrats over the last 40 without cherry-picking. Progressives are generally Democrats, and Republicans aren't the party of big Gov't.
    I thought it was 3 years, then 5. If you start that chart from when I was born it's mostly red, but if you go back to 40 years, then yeah it certainly looks like a lot of blue. Still doesn't matter. First, the parties don't stand for the same things they did 40 yeas ago. I'm not sure it's even the same as when I was a kid. Public opinion has moved everyone around. Newt's Healthcare plan became Obamacare, Bush Sr. rasies taxes, Bush Jr. drops them. It was Nixon that invented Affirmative Action, with his philadelphia plan, etc etc. Politicians change positions like they change suits.

    Second point, the GOP isn't for a weaker government, they're for a smaller government (well so they say, and currently). They generally support spending on military and police, they don't mind eroding civil liberties by wiretapping, using smartphones' GPS to track you without a warrant, and all sorts of other big brother type activities. You are correct when you rail on about entitlements, but it's like you can't see the other side of the coin. Smaller government seems great until you realize that there's a very real danger that even though government shrinks, that doesn't mean it's weaker. it might just be a consolidation of power. Well look back and ask yourself, which one are you really getting from the republicans? That's why I rail on about not getting wrapped up in party politics.

    That does it. You're not just lying viciously about me, you're ascribing to me the very behaviors which I consider far beyond personal insult; no more Mr. Nice Guy. If my side is conformity, why was I spitting at you for being a lock-step Progressive who lied to himself and others about it? As for groupthink, considering that's one of the favorite commie bag o'tricks that I routinely take dumps on, it's even more insulting - and which you're completely guilty of it as shown here.
    It's not vicious if I think you have a blind spot. I don't think you're malicious, but I do think you might be concerned about fighting the wrong war. As for why you get mad at me, well maybe because i don't conform enough to the "bad guy" you like to fight, but I certainly don't see things as you do, and thus, i imagine I'm as frustrating to you as you can be to me. you might have noticed that there are certainly several recent threads where we didn't argue.

    I also like to think that there's some mutual respect here since I actually read most of your links, and don't immediately ignore your posts.


    Ah, there we go - so all this is really about your self-indulgent, misogynistic attitudes and selfish personal ethics. You can't stand your maturity and manhood being discussed and judged as shameful. So what you really want is to slander me since I pointed it out previously and then beat you raw with what is your inherently juvenile dishonesty and desire for irresponsibility.

    I hadn't realized it stung so deeply that you were bearing a grudge. No wonder they'd left you; for the most part, women aren't interested in being treated like a dishtowel rather than as potential wives and mothers. Incidentally, the majority of men don't try to be gigolos either; perhaps you can use the "genes" excuse next time.
    lol, yes, I'm such a player, B*****es be worried, or whatever they say. :rollseyes:

    I'm very comfortable with the way I treat women. It's how they've treated me of late that causes me the most consternation. Anyway, consensual pre-marital sex is not predatory or abusive.


    i.e. people like you, who while pretending that morals can exist in a social vacuum, think these results are just peachy as long as you can screw who you like sans repercussions:
    I'm not diving into the abortion thing again. I've repeatedly said I don't support partial birth abortions.


    [/I]

    *********************************************
    You honestly did piss me off with these false accusations and projection; I'm not play-acting as I usually do. I wouldn't punch below the belt about your love life had you not. I don't squelch or report people aside from truly rare occasions, but you went far beyond the pale there.
    *********************************************
    If it was over the top, I apologize. I hope the explanations above smooth things over. I'm never going to agree with you on everything, but I do respect that you clearly take time to put it back out there with links and what is obviously a fair amount of fact-checking. As for my love life, nothing you say on the internet is really going to change it a bit. I do hope that you don't shun me with the ignore button, as without our back and forth i'd have little to do when I need a break.



    That's obviously not true, if you think about it. Who's going to distribute the centralized social benefits? Who's going to decide the people who get to sit on the "death panels"? Just because we're not talking a single megalomaniac dictator hardly means European governments are somehow not performing centralized planning; they're certainly not allowing market forces to dictate affairs. Are you somehow trying to assert that the Euro is a capitalist construct?
    Sure, but underneath all the bull, it remains where some people are thinking that choices are made better on behalf of the whole, in a centralized fashion (of some stripe) than individually. Usually people like Steve, who doesn't want individuals to have power to think things that go against his beliefs.
    You can think them, just don't get all mad when I don't.


    Kris, the death panels he's talking about are who decides who gets life saving treatments in a single payer system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kris to Jmerv (I'm butting in)
    Socialists don't allow the markets to decide on anything at all. You can hardly say that about social democrats. If you do, you could call everybody a socialist.
    um, yeah. Exactly. And he does. It's a definition thing. you're using the same word differently.




  8. #48
    IncGamers Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,690

    Re: Jluy 4th Thread

    I just wrote and deleted a big piece on death panels or "suicide intervention panels" as they ought to be called. Upwards of 80% of health problems are preventable, or "self inflicted" as I like to say. I should really go ahead and make that euthanasia thread someday...

    Anyway, replaced with:

    Leo will be so happy to read about death panels and Hitler, especially after a hangover!



  9. #49
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: Jluy 4th Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    Regarding socialism, we are back to your apples versus my oranges, that's not worth debating. In particular, I'm fed up with pointing out the difference between socialism (i.e. what happened in the GDR) and e.g. social democrats.
    It's worth debating; you're simply wrong and can't admit it. Socialism is when you collectivize a social benefit. Europe isn't into full-blown Marxism, obviously, but you have yet to either provide a meaningful objection or contrary definition.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    Regarding Greece, the point is that they don't get their problems solved on their own. If they want us to help them, they should heed a few more of the advice of others and make them come true.
    Sure, and so who's the "us" here? Why does Greece have to do anything? You instinctually recognize the core flaw of socialism, but you can't afford to recognize intellectually what your part in it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    Don't expect us to pay a single cent to avoid serving as your culprits.
    Aside from Fr. Merkel, do you believe you're not going to continue to bail them out despite their despicable behavior? Particularly with the "Euro" at stake?
    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    They took the higher interest ratings because of the higher risk and now, as Greek cannot pay anymore, we cover the losses of the banks?
    Guess what? "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"




  10. #50
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,937

    Re: Jluy 4th Thread

    I just lost the more thoughtful response here; I'll make this shorter since I can't seem to restore it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    you're really going to get mad because we differ politically?
    No, I got mad because you repeatedly and falsely characterized my positions and beliefs trying to discredit me to someone else. The sort of shyte that Llad12 used to pull. Most of your claims about me are open lies; this had nothing to do with my "being called on it".
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Anyway, I felt confident saying that because you supported citizens united,
    Because it keeps the playing field even between the secret Democrap funding streams and the legitimate GOP ones. We're already dangerously close to one-party rule by the entitlement peddlers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    got all worked up because I don't go to a church
    The only reason that's not lower than my interest in Kim Kardashian is that she's fun to watch getting reamed out.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    and am unconvinced that the church really has a clue about the nature and or existence of god.
    More the way you claim all believers are insane, malevolent, and trying to rule the world that gets me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    You support the church's political positions as gospel (pun intended),
    Another complete falsehood.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    and you fell generally against any employee or consumer protections.
    Correct, as Killer whupped you hard regarding.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    When faced with any issue that pits the church (or christianity in general) against really anything, you've chosen the church.
    Fancy that, I prefer to worship my God than the iron boot of the State, as you prefer. I'd kicked your arse about your "theocracy" claims previously, but it apparently sank in no deeper than your understanding of the damage of "hook up culture".
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    And when it came to unlimited corporate power (which includes purchasing legislation), you always seem to support corporations.
    Again, because corporations can't force you to do something, where Gov't can and does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Power doesn't come from the end of a gun. Power comes from the ability to get others to convince others to convince others to point those guns for you.
    Amongst the more risible things you've said. The NSDAP wasn't guilty because Hitler persuaded them?
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Still doesn't matter.
    It matters because you've tried to lie about it twice so far in this thread alone. The only way you can pretend you have legitimacy is starting the clock at the start of Bush's term and stopping it less than six years later, before Reid & Pelosi got in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I don't think you're malicious, but I do think you might be concerned about fighting the wrong war.
    Whereas I now think that you are. The reason I "fight" this "war" is that you & yours have a fundamental lack of comprehension about the current state of Gov't power, and continue to imagine "Theocracy", "Big Business", and "Republicans" are somehow meaningful threats. The reason you're this badly delusional is because you have no grasp of history, and simply take what is spouted by the Left as patent truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    I also like to think that there's some mutual respect here
    Not now. You've ignored what I believe and thrown up a false picture to discredit me. That's the sort of thing that invariably pisses me off on a semi-permanent basis.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    Anyway, consensual pre-marital sex is not predatory or abusive.
    Not really. Monica got cigar'ed of her own will, but that doesn't remove the predation. Put another way, I've been married going on 25 years - I know a good bit more about it than you, and I recognize your self-centered core beliefs as part of the problem. You're not marrying material, as you probably comprehend, but you don't understand why that means the opposite sex generally won't like you using them as carnival rides. The majority of women don't want a relationship to be primarily sexual in nature; they want a secure family and children as a destination, and it is only the Left's feminist lie that has caused them to sleep around in hopes of achieving it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    If it was over the top, I apologize. I hope the explanations above smooth things over.
    It was, they don't. You continue to purposefully ignore my points and pretend I support things which I patently opposed.

    In turn, I should recognize that because of my vaudevillian approach, I shouldn't be pissed when people ignore my truths (and my links) and instead use <me> as the punching bag, even when I'm not what they claim I am. It happened routinely on the GW OTF since I was the only open conservative there; I just expected more here. What I had considered was publicly stating that I would put you on ignore for a week or two just for ME to cool down, but I think I'm no longer so angry at you as just disappointed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevinator View Post
    You can think them, just don't get all mad when I don't.
    I "get all mad" when you feel you have the right to push others around - the 'barrel of a gun' approach you're accusing me of having.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •