USA – Super Power … but Super Smart?

[joelcairo]

Actually, considering I believe he's about 12, and you keep ranting, whining, and sulking like a spoiled brat when people don't agree with you, I think the perfect match would be between you two...

Bobby I think you miscalculated. In previous rants you've accused people of being 9 and 10 - now it's 12. Didn't you skip 11? Better check your notes - your critical style is so very effective and rational we wouldn't want your numbers to be out of synch.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Emotics and Critions

No, the point is liberals think emotionally (so do women), conservatives think critically.

And I can not speak for JustBob.

Given your state of indecision, you can always settle by saying that JustBob thinks "emotically".

 

[beautydigger]

I think BD's suffering from apeman syndrome and is so painfully missing the stone ages, when cavemen would drag their women by the hair.

That and 180 bucks will get you laid. What happens when all the feminist become lesbo and no longer need the fairy boys. Your a shameless suckass.

 

[JustBob]

Bobby I think you miscalculated. In previous rants you've accused people of being 9 and 10 - now it's 12. Didn't you skip 11? Better check your notes - your critical style is so very effective and rational we wouldn't want your numbers to be out of synch.

Did I say you were 9, 10, or 12? I forget... Regardless, I'll try to find a study on the usage of the argument "THEY SUCK!" in the 9 to 12 age group and get back to you on which age would be the most appropriate comparison in your case.

 

[JustBob]

Given your state of indecision, you can always settle by saying that JustBob thinks "emotically".

From (the now closed) other thread:

Last guy with such a fixation on me was an old pedophile when I was 5 years old. You worry me.

Hmmm... And you managed to carry your fixation on me to another thread... You're quite good at this projection thing aren't you.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

From (the now closed) other thread:



Hmmm... And you managed to carry your fixation on me to another thread... You're quite good at this projection thing aren't you.

Does someone have a copy of Bergson's Le Rire to lend to JustBob? He's taking offense to a word that doesn't even exist...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

That and 180 bucks will get you laid.

That and more: I usually get lots of extra milleage for that price.

What happens when all the feminist become lesbo and no longer need the fairy boys.

Simple, I'll just become a lesbian. Only a bit of training's required: eating boxes, licking carpets... (burp! That box was pasty, man...)

Your a shameless suckass.

Typos happen and no one writes perfect English but you keep repeating the same mistake: "you're" (= you are), not "your" (possessive)...

 

[beautydigger]

Typos happen and no one writes perfect English but you keep repeating the same mistake: "you're" (= you are), not "your" (possessive)...

Here, check this one for mistakes you little spell-checking weasel:

Pussy scum sucking liberal vermin.

Enjoy your happy meal.

 

[metoo4]

Here, check this one for mistakes you little spell-checking weasel:

Pussy scum sucking liberal vermin.

Enjoy your happy meal.

Do I feel somebody's out of arguments here? Wait! It's been that way since a loong time!

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Pussy scum sucking liberal vermin. Enjoy your happy meal.

Which form of liberalism are you talking about? Minarchist or Deweyan? Let me know so I can decide which wine to buy.

 

[beautydigger]

Do I feel somebody's out of arguments here? Wait! It's been that way since a loong time!

After reading your post #91 I gave up. I have no idea what you are saying and realize you don't either.

 

[metoo4]

I figured that much. Sorry, I was expecting too much from you. Won't happen again.

 

[beautydigger]

I figured that much. Sorry, I was expecting too much from you. Won't happen again.

Maybe you can have one of your butt buddies explain.

 

[John_Cage]

(...)
But he doesn't believe it. He does it for the money.
(...)

It's so true. Lots of people who promote hate speech or thoughts did it only to gain political and/or social power. Very few thinkers "actually" believe in the crap that they sell. It's the impressionable teenagers that they target who actually believe those things. I can think of quite a few examples where a person of great power got there purely by inciting the masses with emotionally heated speeches and thoughts (usually hateful).

To BD, the proud American:

As a general rule, people who throw out word combinations like "suckass" are usually out of an argument (viable argument). If you must attack someone (IF), try to do it logically, clearly and free of linguistic errors.

Let's analyse WHY people throw out useless comments and insults:

In any kind of debate, there's always someone who had more logics and facts on his/her side, let's call this person, A.

The other person, B, is the one who isn't quite as well matched in terms of logics and facts.
In a perfect world, B would've listened to A and realized the error of his/her ways; however, it's not in a typical person's nature to admit defeat, thus B would come up of some sort of "comeback" that acts as a shield to hide behind.

Why can't B just say something logical? Because anything logical can be rebuked by A (who's superior in that field). Therefore B must come up with something that A cannot rebuke (or rather not), and it also must allow B to "let his/her anger out" (B is angry because he realized the weakness in his actual arguments and beliefs).

The technique (if we can call it that) of name-calling is that whatever you decided to say, it MUST be senseless and pointless. Or else you risk it backfiring. For example, a perfect name-calling would be "suckass" or "pussy scum sucking liberal vermin"... Unless A is willing to say "Oh, I disagree, I have not in fact suck any ass; and also liberals are of the species Homo Sapian, very much different from that of a vermin.", he/she would not have an argument.

Thus I conclude Name-Calling wins all debates ! If that fails, claim that your views are that of a "real man".

 

[beautydigger]

No, but I know what you're saying. I listened to Michael Savage last night-actually agreed with him on the Imus thing, but that's about it.

Then I went to his website. Your words, BD, are borrowed lock, stock and barrell from Michael Savage. You don't appear to have an original thought.

Your thoughts here aren't developed or independent. Savage preys on unformed, impressionable young minds like yours with his brand of hate speak. But he doesn't believe it. He does it for the money.

Savage was born Michael Alan Weiner. He moved from New York to San Francisco and got a PhD in ethnomedicine-you know, another one of those pansy fields he would decry and you would parrot. He was friends with the very openly, in fact, flaming, gay poet, Alan Ginsberg. There are rumors he was actively gay, which would explain his hatred of gays today. No hatred like self hatred. Weiner was an ultra liberal. His first wife had two abortions and he once wrote a book called, "Getting off Cocaine: Thirty Days to Freedom." Look it up.

Suddenly he changed his views in the early 80s-when he saw the chance to make a buck on talk radio. But he could've moved away from the left coast, which he decries so often. He chose not to.

He tries to hide all of these facts and his identity as Michael Weiner. He sues any website that writes the truth about his past. But it's all there-look it up. Look up the name Michael Alan Weiner and read some of the books he's written. And learn to think for yourself.

You are so uninformed and brainwashed that you don't even realize that people like you will be the death of free speech.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

J_C, you're certainly one of the smartest and most articulated poster of this board but here I must tell you you're playing into BD's hands. The dude's just a comedian seeking for attention. The best is either to ignore him or to rebut his nonsense with humour: no real point to get upset, let alone teaching him anything.

 

[beautydigger]

Soon all truth will be considered hate speech.

 

[beautydigger]

It's so true. Lots of people who promote hate speech or thoughts did it only to gain political and/or social power. Very few thinkers "actually" believe in the crap that they sell. It's the impressionable teenagers that they target who actually believe those things. I can think of quite a few examples where a person of great power got there purely by inciting the masses with emotionally heated speeches and thoughts (usually hateful).

To BD, the proud American:

As a general rule, people who throw out word combinations like "suckass" are usually out of an argument (viable argument). If you must attack someone (IF), try to do it logically, clearly and free of linguistic errors.

Let's analyse WHY people throw out useless comments and insults:

In any kind of debate, there's always someone who had more logics and facts on his/her side, let's call this person, A.

The other person, B, is the one who isn't quite as well matched in terms of logics and facts.
In a perfect world, B would've listened to A and realized the error of his/her ways; however, it's not in a typical person's nature to admit defeat, thus B would come up of some sort of "comeback" that acts as a shield to hide behind.

Why can't B just say something logical? Because anything logical can be rebuked by A (who's superior in that field). Therefore B must come up with something that A cannot rebuke (or rather not), and it also must allow B to "let his/her anger out" (B is angry because he realized the weakness in his actual arguments and beliefs).

The technique (if we can call it that) of name-calling is that whatever you decided to say, it MUST be senseless and pointless. Or else you risk it backfiring. For example, a perfect name-calling would be "suckass" or "pussy scum sucking liberal vermin"... Unless A is willing to say "Oh, I disagree, I have not in fact suck any ass; and also liberals are of the species Homo Sapian, very much different from that of a vermin.", he/she would not have an argument.

Thus I conclude Name-Calling wins all debates ! If that fails, claim that your views are that of a "real man".

So proper for a "John".

 

[John_Cage]

So proper for a "John".

If you are not a John... Then your posting here is one of the biggest mysteries in the 21 century. ;-)

 

[metoo4]

Maybe you can have one of your butt buddies explain.

BD, Explain to you I guess?

That's summs it up! He can't even understand why I feel I overestimated him! He think I'm sorry not to understand him! Talk about being self-centered!

Unbeliveable! I even underestimated the possibility he would understand I was sorry to post something his "brain power" could not understand! Now, if this isn't a clugged-up mind!

BD, I'm sorry I can't go low enough in the mentality scale to post something you might be able to grasp. Usually I'm pretty good at "vulgarizing" and even my 10yo nephew understand me when I talk about pretty complex stuff but, look like I'd have to go below 10yo and, the more the concept to explain is, the more it's impossible to go below a certain treshold.

Be honest: how old are you really? Knowing this will help us in formulating answers you might be able to understand so, be honest with yourself here, it's for your own good.