CLINTON'S MISDEEDS

[GT86]

blah blah blah

Typical response. It must be nice for you to live in such a simple world where everything is black and white. Dems = good, Repubs = evil.

I can list quite a few things that would fall under Clinton misdeeds (Waco, Somalia, Oklahoma City, the 1st WTC bombing, Ruby Ridge, the USS Cole, the inane "Assault Weapons Ban", Rwanda, bombing a Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Kosovo, attempting to censor the internet, the whole cigar incident, the rash of pardons issued before he left office, the divulging of nuclear secrets to China, etc). Actually, not all of these are "his" misdeeds, some just happened under his presidency. But since you blame Bush for things that happen under his watch, let's do the same for Clinton.

However, it just goes toward proving my point that all politicians are essentially the same. They make different speeches depending on their party affiliation, and push different buttons on different issues, but in the end, all they do is pass laws that end up restricting our freedoms further.

Yes, in the past I was a Republican cheerleader. I've since come to realize that the words Republican and Democrat really don't mean anything. They are just labels that divide. They create incessant partisan bickering between the two groups that does nothing but create a smokescreen. A smokescreen behind which the people in power can go about their real agenda relatively unnoticed.

[stimpy]

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

[EBSB52]

Truth is, that's how the Republican Party works, off some rally cry to save America from the poor who want to drain the riches via welfare, when in reality corporate welfare is far more devastating and goes to the few instead of spreding to the masses.

funny - you've called me a repug - so you must think i'm rich and wealthy trying to keep the poor from touching my pennies..

more liberal extremist bs

4 posts that address nothing:

1. I'm convinced you just like reading your own crap - why else would you write a damn novel to answer a one liner? amazing

2. how did I miss your one liner? oh it was in the middle of a steaming pile of horse shit

actually I like him because he agrees with me - you are a leftist extremist thats hung up on being a democrat and blaiming everything on the republican party.. you should know that there are liberal republicans and conservative democrats and a lot of people in the middle. You should also know that as long as you portray yourself as an extremist that nobody will take you seriously nor will anybody really feel like waisting time provide contrary facts to you because they already know its waisted time, time much better spent taking a dump or beating your head against a wall.

They have no need to debate "the issues" as you say because they already have figured out what their opinion is - so why should they justify their opinion to you? You've got some serious ego to think that people have to qualify their opinion with you before its just as valid as yours.

When it comes to debating issues - the debate is for the purpose of convincing the people who don't yet have an opinion, what their opinion should be.

3. ah - the very informative, factual, responce that pertains purely to the issues and not to the owner of the opinion.

[cough]hypocrite[/cough]

4. funny - you've called me a repug - so you must think i'm rich and wealthy trying to keep the poor from touching my pennies..

more liberal extremist bs[/b[

I have exactly no problem with name calling, this is not Pollock’s fag forum. What I want to see is some substantive conversation. Will I? Of course not; the Repub agenda is indefensible. I will just see whining about name-calling, since it actually appears that you are answering the posts, when in reality you are just using up bandwidth.

They have no need to debate "the issues" as you say because they already have figured out what their opinion is - so why should they justify their opinion to you?

This is not about opinion, it’s about objective conversation. Much of one of the threads was about Patterson, a person not associated here, just posted by someone as reference for a credible source. I refuted statements made by Patterson as misinformation, which rejects the believability of the source. All I want to do is to discuss the issues, which in this thread is Clinton’s misdeeds. The Patterson reference was on-line with the issue, but not credible. I refuted it and no one has yet to attempt to provide evidence to the contrary. Now it’s all about not wasting time…..ya

Please, please, please address these issues that I’ve previously posted in this thread:

_____________________________________________________________________

Ok, I was hoping for a little more detail with your argument, but I'm used to one-liners.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

Raised taxes

- Reagan
- In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.

Reaganomics
Definition
Economic program utilized during the Reagan administration, which emphasized low taxes, low social services spending, and high military spending. Contributed to low interest rates, low inflation, and large budget deficits.

- Bush Sr
- Following what seemed to be a yearly tradition of new tax acts that began in 1986, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 was signed into law on Nov. 5, 1990. As with the '87, '88, and '89 acts, the 1990 act, while providing a number of substantive provisions, was small in comparison with the 1986 act. The emphasis of the 1990 act was increased taxes on the wealthy.

This is why Bush Sr wasn’t as bad as originally thought. This is why he and Clinton get along so well and why I believe he thinks his son, the chimp, is such a fucked up president.

- Clinton
- On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton signed the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. The act's purpose was to reduce by approximately $496 billion the federal deficit that would otherwise accumulate in fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In 1997, Clinton signed another tax act. The act, which cut taxes by $152 billion, included a cut in capital-gains tax for individuals, a $500 per child tax credit, and tax incentives for education.

Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993
- Legislation created to reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending and increasing taxes.

- Bush W
- President George W. Bush signed tax cuts into law in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. The largest was the first, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II, behind only the Kennedy tax cut signed by Johnson in 1964 and the Reagan tax cut in 1981. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%).
The Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 provided tax relief to businesses and included a 13-week extension on unemployment insurance and tax breaks for taxpayers affected by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the tax rate cuts that had been enacted in 2001, and temporarily reduced the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15%. In 2004, the U.S. was forced to eliminate a corporate tax provision that had been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Along with that tax hike, Congress passed a cornucopia of tax breaks, which for individuals included an option to deduct the payment of whichever state taxes were higher, sales or income taxes.

MY ARGUMENT

So Reagan cut taxes and increased spending to insane proportions, hence the deficit soared through the roof and we pay interest on that money. Bush 1 was left with the disaster and did what he could, but he was a victim of his diaper-wearing mentor and paid with no reelection. Then Clinton enters the scene, signs into law in 1993 an act that raised taxes for a few years, got the annual budget back in the black, and then in 1997 when the government was in the black for the first time in decades, cut taxes to operate just in the black. Then comes Bush; he signs monster tax cuts and throws our budget so far into the red that Hoover is finally allowed to rest in his grave. So my question is this: were Clinton’s tax increases so bad? He’s the only president since the 1960 to operate in the black and he’s chastised by Democrat haters. Does it really make sense to decry his temporary tax raises? He was arguably the only fiscally responsible president since the early 60’s. I beg for an intelligent argument.

Look at this graph and do the math:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/g ... t_id=48848;

Then look at this one:
http://www.heritage.org/research/featur ... artc-4.jpg

B) Cut defense spending

This is partially true / partially false, but not necessarily a bad thing.. There was a trend since the Bush1 term to cut spending and troops.

SPENDING: http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0118-RobPoor.GIF

TROOPS: http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf (TABLE) http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf
As you can see, the base reductions started in the Bush1 era. Per the table, I established Bush cut troops by 18% in 4 years and Clinton 21% in 8 years.

That trend continued into the Clinton years but was then halted in 1996 by pressure from Republicans.

Mr. Clinton, having cut welfare spending by $55 billion over six years in 1996, is giving defense an $124 billion spending increase. The surplus which was to have been targeted for education, Social Security, Medicare, and for the poor will be used to fight U.S. provoked "terrorism."

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0118-RobPoor.html
Measured in 1995 dollars, U.S. defense spending has declined from a Cold War high of around $375 billion in 1988 to around $265 billion in 1997, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

MY ARGUMENT
Who was the enemy? Did a country attack us? Was there an impending attack? Was a country threatening to attack us? Wasn’t the façade of a threat gone in 89 when the wall fell? If so, why continue to spend, other than to line the pockets of the wealthy with corporate welfare? If need drives spending, shouldn’t we spend if, and only if there is a need? Isn’t it fiscally irresponsible to spend with no immediate or imminent need? According to the Republicans, no.

Also, there were base closures during the Clinton years, just as there are about to be some now. Critics were crying like babies then, but where are they now? Face it, it’s just Clinton-bashing without merit.

Clinton continued where Bush1 left off with his gradual cuts in troops and military spending until the Republicans pressured him to increase spending by way of impeachment, so he redirected social funds to the military; where’s the beef? Where’s the beef for Bush1 if Clinton was so bad? Again, it’s just Clinton-bashing without merit.

C) Inaction with bombing of COle and WTC

As posted above, Clinton did increase military spending in 96. Should Clinton have dropped everything and thrown this county into a war that would arguably yield nothing and blow us into an over 400 billion dollars deficit, like Bush has done? Is there a reasonable way to ever stop Middle Eastern terrorists from attacking the US? Not a fucking chance, other than to defend our borders. Keeping them preoccupied over there at the cost of 1 billion dollars per week and an average of 50 troops per week to date is viable or intelligent.

This crusty old nasty military war techer I had said there are 3 things you can do in the face of any security matter or disagreement like this:

1) Ignore it
2) Talk about it
3) Go to war over it

Of the three, #2 is the best choice. We are living #3 and it’s fruitless. #1 can work, but the best thing is to get out of people’s business and watch things rectify themselves. Either way all we can do is surmise what would have happened if…… We know what #3 is currently doing.

______________________________________________________________________



Let’s examine the bias that Patterson would have here.

1) He is the author, how much did he make off this book?

2) He is very conservative based upon reviews by Publishers Weekly where he is quoted as saying, “…trying to remove the ban on homosexuals and put women in combat roles…â€

[Lex]

This is not about opinion, it’s about objective conversation.

Hey, there is no :rolleyes: smiley. We sure could use one right now.

[stimpy]

Holy fuck.


Will someone just go ahead and suck Eds dick already? Obviously it's not going to be a case of "agreeing to disagree", someone is going to have to move to Arizona and be his prison bitch.

Ed, there is a reason why I, and probably a few others don't want to hang in Old Europe, and it's because of shit like this. We are all aware of your politics now. For those who care. I'd wager the majority of us get up in the morning and eat our Cream of Wheat without giving much thought to how you feel about Bush. But now you've shared with the class, and in great detail I might add.

So, can we cool it with the term papers for a little bit? You're giving me Toddster flashbacks, and that's totally uncool.

[Lex]

You're giving me Toddster flashbacks.

Glad I am not the only one.

[GT86]

someone is going to have to move to Arizona and be his prison bitch.

lol, I live in Arizona, but that job description don't sound like a whole lot of fun

[EBSB52]

Holy fuck.


Will someone just go ahead and suck Eds dick already? Obviously it's not going to be a case of "agreeing to disagree", someone is going to have to move to Arizona and be his prison bitch.

Ed, there is a reason why I, and probably a few others don't want to hang in Old Europe, and it's because of shit like this. We are all aware of your politics now. For those who care. I'd wager the majority of us get up in the morning and eat our Cream of Wheat without giving much thought to how you feel about Bush. But now you've shared with the class, and in great detail I might add.

So, can we cool it with the term papers for a little bit? You're giving me Toddster flashbacks, and that's totally uncool.

1. That was just a reposting of what other posters failed to reply to, but still continued to claim they were right. Just thought I would give them a chance to maybe answer a few questions. Th is not about agreeing to disagree, it's about misrepresentations of facts to pretend something exists that isn't true.

2. As for not hanging in Old Europe, I didn't ant to because of the cliques, I assume we all have slightly to greatly different reasons for not wanting to be there. I didn't like be "guided" with my thinking via a rating system governed by a Nazi. I think you liked it until the end, when your popularity and power declined. You, like the head Nazi there, want people to follow you and think like you. Evidence of this is found when I say Hugh is a crusty old bastard. He is and you can't stand it when someone points it out and disagrees with you. In fact, Stinky, you will compromise your own beliefs for popularity, which is why I left Old Europe.

3. As for the Tedster reference, that's weak. That's the guy who supposedly voted for Reagan when he was 17. What he stands for is dishonesty to gain followership, which are 2 things I'm against. That is a weak attempt to assimilate 2 very different people.

4. So now Stikny comes here to do the same thing he did at Old Europe; try to take over. It appears he has some clout and following here, I wonder if history repeats itself? The more things change / the more they stay the same.....

[EBSB52]

someone is going to have to move to Arizona and be his prison bitch.

lol, I live in Arizona, but that job description don't sound like a whole lot of fun

Besides, you already have a job...... "Ducker of the Issues."

[GT86]

someone is going to have to move to Arizona and be his prison bitch.

lol, I live in Arizona, but that job description don't sound like a whole lot of fun

Besides, you already have a job...... "Ducker of the Issues."

LMAO, you're too blinded by rhetoric to even see the issues. You are pretty good and digging up links and copy-n-pasting though. OK, feel free to rant, I'm outta this thread :salute:

[EBSB52]

blah blah blah

Typical response. It must be nice for you to live in such a simple world where everything is black and white. Dems = good, Repubs = evil.

I can list quite a few things that would fall under Clinton misdeeds (Waco, Somalia, Oklahoma City, the 1st WTC bombing, Ruby Ridge, the USS Cole, the inane "Assault Weapons Ban", Rwanda, bombing a Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Kosovo, attempting to censor the internet, the whole cigar incident, the rash of pardons issued before he left office, the divulging of nuclear secrets to China, etc). Actually, not all of these are "his" misdeeds, some just happened under his presidency. But since you blame Bush for things that happen under his watch, let's do the same for Clinton.

However, it just goes toward proving my point that all politicians are essentially the same. They make different speeches depending on their party affiliation, and push different buttons on different issues, but in the end, all they do is pass laws that end up restricting our freedoms further.

Yes, in the past I was a Republican cheerleader. I've since come to realize that the words Republican and Democrat really don't mean anything. They are just labels that divide. They create incessant partisan bickering between the two groups that does nothing but create a smokescreen. A smokescreen behind which the people in power can go about their real agenda relatively unnoticed.

Typical response. It must be nice for you to live in such a simple world where everything is black and white. Dems = good, Repubs = evil.

How are my arguments black / white? I’m just disproving assertions. Also, I have pointed out a few things that Clinton did that I was against, so there is no all good vs. all bad.

I can list quite a few things that would fall under Clinton misdeeds (Waco, Somalia, Oklahoma City, the 1st WTC bombing, Ruby Ridge, the USS Cole, the inane "Assault Weapons Ban", Rwanda, bombing a Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Kosovo, attempting to censor the internet, the whole cigar incident, the rash of pardons issued before he left office, the divulging of nuclear secrets to China, etc). Actually, not all of these are "his" misdeeds, some just happened under his presidency. But since you blame Bush for things that happen under his watch, let's do the same for Clinton.

This is what it takes for you to build your case. I will make a template for you.

1. Waco,
2. Somalia,
3. Oklahoma City,
4. the 1st WTC bombing,
5. Ruby Ridge,
6. the USS Cole,
7. the inane "Assault Weapons Ban",
8. Rwanda,
9. bombing a Chinese embassy in Belgrade,
10. Kosovo,
11. attempting to censor the internet,
12. the whole cigar incident,
13. the rash of pardons issued before he left office,
14. the divulging of nuclear secrets to China,

And I would agree with you on some, adamantly disagree with you on others. Why not take this template and expound in detail and banter? Is it because it would require work and that you would be unable to establish they were A) derogatory things, and B) Clinton’s fault? Give it a whack.

However, it just goes toward proving my point that all politicians are essentially the same. They make different speeches depending on their party affiliation, and push different buttons on different issues, but in the end, all they do is pass laws that end up restricting our freedoms further.

There is some truth to that, but not exactly. You actually backslide on the whole, ‘all politicians are the same’ mentality when you write, “…push different buttons on different issues…â€

[EBSB52]

someone is going to have to move to Arizona and be his prison bitch.

lol, I live in Arizona, but that job description don't sound like a whole lot of fun

Besides, you already have a job...... "Ducker of the Issues."

LMAO, you're too blinded by rhetoric to even see the issues. You are pretty good and digging up links and copy-n-pasting though. OK, feel free to rant, I'm outta this thread :salute:

As I wrote: ducker of the issues. Run, run away, do what you do best. You entered the thread, made assertions, I disproved them and established you have a history of finger pointing, as you blamed the Dems for doing. WHy not address the issues? Because you can't successfully do so and do anything but get in deeper..... run.....

[Lex]

4. So now Stikny comes here to do the same thing he did at Old Europe; try to take over. It appears he has some clout and following here, I wonder if history repeats itself? The more things change / the more they stay the same.....

Stimpy tried to take over Old Europe? God you are fucking warped...

Diggity was right, I should have quit reading.

[Mach10]

http://www.explosm.net/comics/view.asp?id=89

I thought this was an appropriate place to put it.[/img]

[stimpy]

Time to play the quote game!

Holy fuck.


Will someone just go ahead and suck Eds dick already? Obviously it's not going to be a case of "agreeing to disagree", someone is going to have to move to Arizona and be his prison bitch.

Ed, there is a reason why I, and probably a few others don't want to hang in Old Europe, and it's because of shit like this. We are all aware of your politics now. For those who care. I'd wager the majority of us get up in the morning and eat our Cream of Wheat without giving much thought to how you feel about Bush. But now you've shared with the class, and in great detail I might add.

So, can we cool it with the term papers for a little bit? You're giving me Toddster flashbacks, and that's totally uncool.

1. That was just a reposting of what other posters failed to reply to, but still continued to claim they were right. Just thought I would give them a chance to maybe answer a few questions. Th is not about agreeing to disagree, it's about misrepresentations of facts to pretend something exists that isn't true.

And what do you expect to happen. Do you expect someone to say "Uncle"? We've seen these threads going on for the past couple of years, and I can't think of one single mind that has been changed, not a single soul saved. If someone can't acknowledge a fact, beating them about the head and shoulders with it isn't going to acheive any better results. If you have a success story where you've turned a hardcore conservative, I'd love to hear it. I think you'd have a better chance of talking Richard Simmons into going to chase pussy with you.

2. As for not hanging in Old Europe, I didn't ant to because of the cliques, I assume we all have slightly to greatly different reasons for not wanting to be there. I didn't like be "guided" with my thinking via a rating system governed by a Nazi. I think you liked it until the end, when your popularity and power declined. You, like the head Nazi there, want people to follow you and think like you. Evidence of this is found when I say Hugh is a crusty old bastard. He is and you can't stand it when someone points it out and disagrees with you. In fact, Stinky, you will compromise your own beliefs for popularity, which is why I left Old Europe.

Wow, you actually cramped my brain with that one. On one hand I'm a popularity whore who will compromise my beliefs for popularity and at the same time I can't stand it when someone disagrees with me. Whaaa?
I'm having a rough time wrapping my brain around that one. It seems that the person who can't stand someone disagreeing with them is the one making a big fucking deal about a disagreement. Like bringing up Hugh? Whatever dude. Mr. Rogers was a fucking punk too.

3. As for the Tedster reference, that's weak. That's the guy who supposedly voted for Reagan when he was 17. What he stands for is dishonesty to gain followership, which are 2 things I'm against. That is a weak attempt to assimilate 2 very different people.

Your goals may be opposite, but your tactics are identical. I doubt a single other person besides yourself disagrees with that assesment.

4. So now Stikny comes here to do the same thing he did at Old Europe; try to take over. It appears he has some clout and following here, I wonder if history repeats itself? The more things change / the more they stay the same.....

Yeah yeah yeah, so stimpy is your role model, he's really a piece of shit. It's true, history does repeat itself. You must be playing the role of player hater that fierobear did so well. My run is planned for the last week in April, just in case you were planning on coming and fucking it up like he did last year.
"Clout and following"? No, I'm just not a social retard who manages to offend everyone around them. Maybe if you ease up a bit on the political tirades and maybe post some skydiving pictures or stories about some chick you picked up and turned out to be a dude and how you got out of that, well shit, maybe that might make your posts a little bit more of a joyous occaision.

[Blue Shift]

As I wrote: ducker of the issues. Run, run away, do what you do best. You entered the thread, made assertions, I disproved them and established you have a history of finger pointing, as you blamed the Dems for doing. WHy not address the issues? Because you can't successfully do so and do anything but get in deeper..... run.....

Ducker of the issues? That's what happens when you get all whacko on people - they lose interest. Many of the people of various political beliefs on here have abandoned you as a liberal extremist nut with too much time on your hands. We're all too busy laughing our asses off over how seriously you take yourself to bother refuting anything. It's much more entertaining to jab you and let you respond with 9 paragraphs, which is why I'm here. Just so you know, when it comes to the Google & paste obsession, modern antidepressants have proven helpful in reducing the obsessive tendencies of OCD...

The only thing that's running here is your mouth, which runs like a black man runs from the cops in Alabama after raping the mayors 13 yr old daughter. So I'm just going to sit here and point fingers and lead you to believe you're "winning" some contest, when I'm really getting my evening kicks from watching the village liberal whacko spout off some more. You aren't worth the effort of a well formed debate. I guess you haven't figured out yet that you aren't going to get one.

One last pissing point: You can sit here and talk whatever you want to talk, but the guy I voted for is still President, and will be despite any objections from you. Don't like it? Tough shit, move to Canada. Or write a 19 page essay on how the elections were rigged and the Illuminati installed Bush into power.

[zonyl]

I enjoy reading ED's replies. He seems to do a lot of research on the issues (picks the ones he can defend anyway) and that increases my knowledge base some.

Why does anyone feel compelled to encourage ED to stop posting? Cant say this enough; If you dont like what someone says stop reading.

Interrupting a conversation can be funny in a "Blutarsky smashing the profs guitar" kinda way, but most of the times it isnt.

[EBSB52]

Time to play the quote game!

Holy fuck.


Will someone just go ahead and suck Eds dick already? Obviously it's not going to be a case of "agreeing to disagree", someone is going to have to move to Arizona and be his prison bitch.

Ed, there is a reason why I, and probably a few others don't want to hang in Old Europe, and it's because of shit like this. We are all aware of your politics now. For those who care. I'd wager the majority of us get up in the morning and eat our Cream of Wheat without giving much thought to how you feel about Bush. But now you've shared with the class, and in great detail I might add.

So, can we cool it with the term papers for a little bit? You're giving me Toddster flashbacks, and that's totally uncool.

1. That was just a reposting of what other posters failed to reply to, but still continued to claim they were right. Just thought I would give them a chance to maybe answer a few questions. Th is not about agreeing to disagree, it's about misrepresentations of facts to pretend something exists that isn't true.

And what do you expect to happen. Do you expect someone to say "Uncle"? We've seen these threads going on for the past couple of years, and I can't think of one single mind that has been changed, not a single soul saved. If someone can't acknowledge a fact, beating them about the head and shoulders with it isn't going to acheive any better results. If you have a success story where you've turned a hardcore conservative, I'd love to hear it. I think you'd have a better chance of talking Richard Simmons into going to chase pussy with you.

2. As for not hanging in Old Europe, I didn't ant to because of the cliques, I assume we all have slightly to greatly different reasons for not wanting to be there. I didn't like be "guided" with my thinking via a rating system governed by a Nazi. I think you liked it until the end, when your popularity and power declined. You, like the head Nazi there, want people to follow you and think like you. Evidence of this is found when I say Hugh is a crusty old bastard. He is and you can't stand it when someone points it out and disagrees with you. In fact, Stinky, you will compromise your own beliefs for popularity, which is why I left Old Europe.

Wow, you actually cramped my brain with that one. On one hand I'm a popularity whore who will compromise my beliefs for popularity and at the same time I can't stand it when someone disagrees with me. Whaaa?
I'm having a rough time wrapping my brain around that one. It seems that the person who can't stand someone disagreeing with them is the one making a big fucking deal about a disagreement. Like bringing up Hugh? Whatever dude. Mr. Rogers was a fucking punk too.

3. As for the Tedster reference, that's weak. That's the guy who supposedly voted for Reagan when he was 17. What he stands for is dishonesty to gain followership, which are 2 things I'm against. That is a weak attempt to assimilate 2 very different people.

Your goals may be opposite, but your tactics are identical. I doubt a single other person besides yourself disagrees with that assesment.

4. So now Stikny comes here to do the same thing he did at Old Europe; try to take over. It appears he has some clout and following here, I wonder if history repeats itself? The more things change / the more they stay the same.....

Yeah yeah yeah, so stimpy is your role model, he's really a peice of shit. It's true, history does repeat itself. You must be playing the role of player hater that fierobear did so well. My run is planned for the last week in April, just in case you were planning on coming and fucking it up like he did last year.
"Clout and following"? No, I'm just not a social retard who manages to offend everyone around them. Maybe if you ease up a bit on the political tirades and maybe post some skydiving pictures or stories about some chick you picked up and turned out to be a dude and how you got out of that, well shit, maybe that might make your posts a little bit more of a joyous occaision.

And what do you expect to happen. Do you expect someone to say "Uncle"? We've seen these threads going on for the past couple of years, and I can't think of one single mind that has been changed, not a single soul saved. If someone can't acknowledge a fact, beating them about the head and shoulders with it isn't going to acheive any better results. If you have a success story where you've turned a hardcore conservative, I'd love to hear it. I think you'd have a better chance of talking Richard Simmons into going to chase pussy with you.

Not at all, I just want to hear people's arguments. They feel strongly and post assertions, I refute them, sometimes spend a lot of time, and then someone takes a sentence out of the entie posting and makes it the thesis statement while ignoring the rest. I'm not surprised, just want to point it out. See, many people carry verbal conversations the same way, get stuck, misdirect.

I'm nothere to change minds or save souls, just like to debate issues. I'm not saying I'm right, just hate to see people cower from arguments.

As far as acknowleding a fact, I'd rather they attempt to disprove it or accept it.

As far as changing a hardcore conservative, I was once a moderate conservative and am now a moderate liberal. I don't want to change a soul, just get disgusted when people make assertions they can't support, get caught, and then run or take a fringe of the argument and make it the whole. It's just a hobby. I can say the same about guys like you who care what I do in reagrd to arguments; why do you continue to pursue it rather than just igniring it? So you are guilty of the same thing I am while admonishing me for doing it. You won't change me.

Wow, you actually cramped my brain with that one. On one hand I'm a popularity whore who will compromise my beliefs for popularity and at the same time I can't stand it when someone disagrees with me. Whaaa?
I'm having a rough time wrapping my brain around that one. It seems that the person who can't stand someone disagreeing with them is the one making a big fucking deal about a disagreement. Like bringing up Hugh? Whatever dude. Mr. Rogers was a fucking punk too.

That's how you attempt ot gain popularity; control the traffic so to speak. IF you control the way things are done, who's to post about what, then you can gain popularity of everyone plays ball via being afraid to contradict you. These really coincide rather than contradict.

You did throw a fit when I stated I thought Hugh was a dick, now you downplay it.

Your goals may be opposite, but your tactics are identical. I doubt a single other person besides yourself disagrees with that assesment.

Provide evidence. This is your way to assimilate me to him. His tactics were to refer to his rating bar and to refer to his online book store that hasn't sold a book in years, all the while calling himself an antique book dealer. Then he would lie about age or other things to cement his arguments. My M.O. has been to research info and post arguments around them. I also throw in defamation to wake people up if they begin to desperately use diversionary tactics or if they initiate it, but that isn't the crux of my argument. So yes, I disagree with that and have illustrated why as opposed to speaking for everyone else. That last statement is an example of how you atempt to gain popularity; you speak for people and many will be afraid to speak out.


Yeah yeah yeah, so stimpy is your role model, he's really a peice of shit. It's true, history does repeat itself. You must be playing the role of player hater that fierobear did so well. My run is planned for the last week in April, just in case you were planning on coming and fucking it up like he did last year.
"Clout and following"? No, I'm just not a social retard who manages to offend everyone around them. Maybe if you ease up a bit on the political tirades and maybe post some skydiving pictures or stories about some chick you picked up and turned out to be a dude and how you got out of that, well shit, maybe that might make your posts a little bit more of a joyous occaision.

Why throw in something that won't occur? To make inferences of things that won't happen? Aren't you now self-victimizing? Maybe a little misdiection?

And you were kicked off Old Europe for being liked by all, especially the tards in control? You offend plenty and are now calling me offensive... laughable.

Post pics so you can photoshop! COme on, I'm smarter than that!!!

What I don't understand is why you need to post in this thread when you could simply decide it's not for you and move on. I'm left believing that you want to sway the way people think and make it a control move. I pm'd you asking what you meant by an earlier statement, you ignore it and make it a public issue. WHy? Popularity? Control? Yes. I don't knwo volumes about why you were kicked off Old Europe, but I assume it's due to the same.

[Kohburn]

Because you can't successfully do so and do anything but get in deeper..... run.....

McFly... what are ya.. chicken


what a waste of neurons - and so typical of extremists "oh they stopped arguing with me- that means i'm right"


maybe if everyone ignores you, you'll go away

[stimpy]

I pm'd you asking what you meant by an earlier statement, you ignore it and make it a public issue. WHy? Popularity? Control? Yes. I don't knwo volumes about why you were kicked off Old Europe, but I assume it's due to the same.

Maybe because you didn't send it? I don't delete my PMs, and I have them going back to November. I just looked, not a single one from you. Why don't you try that one again, I'll read it and answer it, and we can start over.

Know volumes? Doesn't sound like you know anything about that particular subject. Why don't you just let that one pass, you're embarassing yourself. I don't understand why you're going into Christ on the Cross mode on this, although you know I'm not surprised one bit.