Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Peeing on Afghans is A-OK by Perry.Follow

#202 Jan 28 2012 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,854 posts
So its ok for an embalmer to charge the dead people's families to clean the bodies up with ammonia, but when the soldiers try and donate it for free, in the name of international solidarity, they get in trouble.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#203 Jan 29 2012 at 6:06 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Whatever helps you hide from reality. Smiley: smile


The reality is in the AR.. where is it again? You know, the AR that states your claim?

Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You're confused.
I'm confused? You're the one who can't stick to what it is you want him to prove.


x < y = y > x... This is a grade school concept. Just because I went from LESS to MORE or vice versa doesn't mean I changed the inequality..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#204 Jan 29 2012 at 6:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,676 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Just because I went from LESS to MORE or vice versa doesn't mean I changed the inequality..
Except you did in this scenario. I know, words are hard for you, but they do having meanings.


Edited, Jan 29th 2012 8:28am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#205 Jan 29 2012 at 6:42 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Just because I went from LESS to MORE or vice versa doesn't mean I changed the inequality..
Except you did in this scenario. I know, words are hard for you, but they do having meanings.


Edited, Jan 29th 2012 8:28am by Uglysasquatch


Nope, I reread it and it was x <y = y > x. You got confused.. It's ok. I switched from stating the left side and the right side.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#206 Jan 29 2012 at 7:53 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
This is Post 206. Smiley: grin
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#207 Jan 29 2012 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Just because I went from LESS to MORE or vice versa doesn't mean I changed the inequality..
Except you did in this scenario. I know, words are hard for you, but they do having meanings.


Edited, Jan 29th 2012 8:28am by Uglysasquatch

If only he had some flash cards...
#208 Jan 29 2012 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
This is Post 206. Smiley: grin


This one is 100% more accurate, concise, and understandable than your last.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#209 Jan 29 2012 at 11:46 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
This is Post 206. Smiley: grin


This one is 100% more accurate, concise, and understandable than your last.


Curse Algebra...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#210 Jan 29 2012 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
MOAR LIEK LOLGEBRA, AMIRITE?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#211 Jan 30 2012 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,420 posts
I see he was too scared to look where I told him to look over the weekend. That's fine, already knew he was hiding from reality. I'm most amused that on his first day of vacation he spent it posting here. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#212 Jan 30 2012 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,206 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I see he was too scared to look where I told him to look over the weekend.]
Maybe he thought he'd accidentally see a penis, or a man's ass.
____________________________
Banh
#213 Jan 30 2012 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
Sir Spoonless wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I see he was too scared to look where I told him to look over the weekend.]
Maybe he thought he'd accidentally see a penis, or a man's ass.


Nope, he was just sure he wouldn't.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#214 Jan 30 2012 at 2:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
NaughtyWord wrote:
Not all of us Right-wingers are driveling idiots. Gbaji is what I call a Republican-Hack. He will make excuses for, defend, or otherwise stonewall bulletproof evidence against a Republican. I'll bet my left nut and a 12 pack of beer he thinks Newt Gingrich is the greatest thing on Earth next to Jesus himself.


You'd better get with the sending of beer and cutting off of half your jewels. Amazing how circular your perceptions are. For the record, I am *not* a Gingrich supporter and never have been. I personally believe that he only ran for President to increase his own name recognition in order to make money on his political brand. The guy has basically been selling political influence as his primary form of income for the last decade.

Quote:
I, not for one minute, will defend, make excuses, or otherwise dismiss Cain's or Gingrich's poor behavior. You Leftists can have your fun with them. Hell, I might even join in on the prodding.


I, not for one minute, have defended, made excuses, or otherwise dismissed Cain's or Gingrich's poor behavior. WTF? Were you absent the day (week really) I basically slapped Varus around for being a blind Cain supporter during the 3 weeks in which Cain was riding high? Um... I'm also fairly certain Cain never intended to go far in the Presidential race either. He was doing it to build up name recognition and sell some books, make money giving speeches, etc. Who knew that he'd have his brief day in the sun, get examined closely, and folks would learn about all the crazy stuff he did back in the day at all those business conventions. Shocking!


Quote:
Though I dislike most of the GOP as much as I do the Leftists and often I see too many similarities.


Sure. Find me a perfect politician. Can't do it? Then find the least imperfect politician you can who promotes an agenda that is most aligned with your own principles. That's why I'm a Republican.

Quote:
Which is why I'm a Libertarian.Smiley: smile


I have my own issues with Libertarians as well (those who vote libertarian, not just those who espouse the political position). Different topic though, I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#215 Jan 30 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
No, you just had fun vilifying the woman who accused him of sexual harassment.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#216 Jan 30 2012 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
No, you just had fun vilifying the woman who accused him of sexual harassment.


Er?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#217 Jan 30 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
For the record, here's me back in June commenting about Gingrich:

gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Gingrich was always a weird run. There's about a dozen old guard GOP pundits or analysts or think tank guys who are just convinced that he'd be awesome... and that's about it. Everyone else is either sick of him or doesn't remember who he is.


Yeah. While he's useful as an idea/opinion guy, I've just never seen him as presidential material. I suppose I could theoretically see him as a VP choice though. Hard to say.



Here's me back in Oct commenting on Cain:

gbaji wrote:
Cain is just this months Perry. If he can survive closer and broader examination, he may have a shot. I have a suspicion he wont though. He's so far shown an amazing ability to fall right into pretty rookie campaign pitfalls. Rhetoric to the contrary aside, there is something to be said about a candidate who has run successfully for office before.


And here's me following up on him in mid Nov:

Quote:
Is this where I pipe up with the same "There's a reason we tend to elect career politicians" bit? I like Cain. I think he's got some interesting ideas and a willingness to say what he thinks, but he's hitting every single branch of the political-fail tree.



I'm not sure how anyone ever got the mistaken impression that I supported either of those candidates. Your assumption cart is leading the reality horse by quite a bit.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#218 Jan 30 2012 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You people are goofs. Gbaji is a stock-standard party line "Here's your daily talking points" Republican. Who does the Republican establishment back? Romney. Who does Gbaji back? Surprise! Romney.

You people who are suggesting he'd back someone without the GOP seal of approval haven't been paying attention Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#219 Jan 30 2012 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You people are goofs. Gbaji is a stock-standard party line "Here's your daily talking points" Republican. Who does the Republican establishment back? Romney. Who does Gbaji back? Surprise! Romney.

You people who are suggesting he'd back someone without the GOP seal of approval haven't been paying attention Smiley: disappointed


Um... So why did I back Romney in 2008? Funny that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#220 Jan 30 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,420 posts
You were on a "Obama has no chance in **** against McCain" kick in early 2008, too.

Edit: Oh, and December 2007 you said you "don't really like Romney as a candidate, but for reasons having nothing to do with his religion nor his positions on religion as it relates to politics." Some backing.

Edited, Jan 30th 2012 5:26pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#221 Jan 30 2012 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You've never gotten your news from anywhere, huh?

Romney WAS the initial establishment pick until his disastrous losses in the early primaries and McCain's unlikely wins (with McCain running as the "maverick"). At which point you immediately jumped full bore onto the McCain Train and praised his virtues along with the rest of the rank and file.

Why do you suppose Romney was considered "next in line" back in 2010 and early 2011 and not Huckabee (before he said he wouldn't run)? Huckster was the real second place in 2008, right? But Romney was always the establishment darling. Review this Oct 2011 Politico article about GOP heavyweights hesitant to back Romney again after throwing their support behind his failed 2008 bid.

Funny that I know so much more than you do about the church you attend Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jan 30th 2012 4:04pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#222 Jan 30 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Romney WAS the initial establishment pick until his disastrous losses in the early primaries and McCain's unlikely wins (with McCain running as the "maverick").


That's some revisionist history right there.

Quote:
At which point you immediately jumped full bore onto the McCain Train and praised his virtues along with the rest of the rank and file.


Immediately being after the nomination was won by McCain? WTF! Do you know when the California Primary is? Do you know who I voted for in that Primary? Strange that I was apparently "full bore" in support of one candidate, but voted for another months later in my own state's primary.


Supporting McCain after he won the nomination does not magically transform into me *not* wanting Romney to be the candidate in the first place. I'm not sure why you'd think that was true. And it's not like because I preferred one candidate that this means that I must oppose and hate the other if he wins the nomination anyway. I mean, you make it sound like there's some unspeakable crime in supporting your party's candidate even though he wasn't the guy you wanted to win the nomination. If I'm somehow hypocritical for doing that, then so are a large majority of all voters in each party in each presidential election.


So I'm vilified in your eyes for doing nothing out of the ordinary at all? Lol!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#223 Jan 30 2012 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
This deserves its own response:

Jophiel wrote:
Funny that I know so much more than you do about the church you attend Smiley: laugh


No. You are much more versed in what liberals say about my party though. Seriously? A Politico article from January of 2011 proclaiming that Romney has a problem because heavy hitters haven't yet jumped behind him? Bit of a push story, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#224 Jan 30 2012 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's some revisionist history right there.

Compelling argument but... ummm... no.
Quote:
A Politico article from January of 2011 proclaiming that Romney has a problem because heavy hitters haven't yet jumped behind him? Bit of a push story, isn't it?

You missed the point. It wasn't to talk about Romney's 2012 chances, it was to note how much of the GOP establishment was behind Romney in 2008. Sometime you seem hellbent on pretending never happened.
Quote:
Immediately being after the nomination was won by McCain? WTF! Do you know when the California Primary is? Do you know who I voted for in that Primary? Strange that I was apparently "full bore" in support of one candidate, but voted for another months later in my own state's primary.
Wiki wrote:
The California Republican primary, 2008 was held on February 5, 2008

Wow. "Months later", huh? You mean, less than a month after McCain started winning primaries and during the Super Tuesday loss that crushed Mitt's chances?

Edited, Jan 30th 2012 6:04pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#225 Jan 30 2012 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You missed the point. It wasn't to talk about Romney's 2012 chances, it was to note how much of the GOP establishment was behind Romney in 2008.


When he was one of the two leading contenders for the nomination? I'm not sure what you think your point is here. So somewhere between 1/3rd and 1/2? Again, what the **** is your point? That math escapes you? That the GOP isn't nearly as focused on "the next guy's turn" as your liberal media sources tell you they are? Isn't this really you spouting facts that refute your own false assumptions, but then instead of thinking "hey! maybe my assumptions are wrong", you're casting about for some other bizarre explanation?

What do *you* think that means Joph? Have you done an historical study of the GOP establishment support in January of the year before an election year for the guy who was second place in the nomination the last time around and determined that Romney is unusual in some way? Or are you just repeating innuendo that you heard somewhere?

Quote:
Sometime you seem hellbent on pretending never happened.


What happened? I'm honestly scratching my head trying to figure out what you're trying to say. So more people were behind Romney at the end of the 2008 primary season than were behind him one year before the 2012 primary season? And? Is that significant?


Quote:
Quote:
Immediately being after the nomination was won by McCain? WTF! Do you know when the California Primary is? Do you know who I voted for in that Primary? Strange that I was apparently "full bore" in support of one candidate, but voted for another months later in my own state's primary.
Wiki wrote:
The California Republican primary, 2008 was held on February 5, 2008

Wow. "Months later", huh? You mean, less than a month after McCain started winning primaries and during the Super Tuesday loss that crushed Mitt's chances?


And? I continued to argue that Romney was my preferred candidate long after that point. I just refused to do what you and Smash wanted me to do, which was apparently to insist that McCain was the worst candidate ever, and couldn't win, and I should just abandon any support for him. Kinda childish isn't that? I mean, you do understand how the whole primary process works, right?

Edited, Jan 30th 2012 4:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#226 Jan 30 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, I know you're trying to bog it down and act all confused but it's pretty crystal clear:

You're for the establishment GOP candidate. This should come to the surprise of no one since you really just parrot whatever the GOP party line is. People who think you'd be supporting anyone except the party line establishment choice don't know you -- adhering to the party line is exactly what you do.

You tried to refute this by pointing at 2008 but Romney was the establishment candidate in 2008 heading into the first month of primaries. You're trying to call it "revisionist history" because you don't like what it says about you but oh well. It's not. I backed this up by citing the number of prominent GOP establishment backers Romney had in 2008. Despite the focus of the article being whether they'd back him in 2012, my point was that Romney had the establishment backing in 2008. NOT McCain since you seem to think "I voted for Romney in 2008!" was some badge of independence or something rather than you doing exactly what the party establishment wanted you to do.

Once Romney lost, you fell lockstep into McCain's camp as one would suspect. You know this is true and started in with the strawmen about how we wanted you to "say McCain was the worst ever" because your little brain only understands black/white or something. If you want to say your reactions through the 2008 primary were all normal or whatever, that's great. So just admit that I'm correct and we're all winners Smiley: smile

Edited, Jan 30th 2012 7:27pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#227 Jan 30 2012 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
Zam search results. Gbaji mentioned Romney MANY times in 2008. But almost all of them were in January or February, with only 4 being outside of those. Let's see... One argues that McCain and Palin were a well-balanced ticket, because he was being smart by staying just right of center, and she drew in the more conservative crowd. There's another with you giving the results of a poll you saw that said Obama was only narrowly leading against McCain, yet never actually LINKED the poll (Despite being asked).

Between April 1 and December 2008, you mention McCain 240 times (and, to repeat, Romney 4).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#228 Jan 30 2012 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
Um... But didn't you just link a Politico article making some kind of big deal about Romney *not* having as much establishment support as he did in 2008?


You're so twisted up in your own attacks that you just blocked yourself. So let me get this straight. You assume that Romney is the establishment candidate because Politico told you that. But Politico told you that by writing an article about how Romney doesn't have the support of the GOP establishment. So instead of concluding, like any sane person would, that perhaps Politico is exaggerating the degree that Romney is supposed to have the establishment support in order to make hay about him not having it, you conclude that he really *is* the establishment candidate despite not having the support of the establishment? And then you accept the Politico hay about him not having the support and then on top of that make hay about me supporting the "establishment candidate".

That about sum it up? Dude. That's the most incredibly obtuse train of thought ever.


How about we simplify it to the fact that I support the candidate in the race that I think best represents the ideals that I believe in as a conservative and leave it at that. You assume something about me, and then when the facts don't match, you reinterpret them until they do. You might want to seek professional help for that.

Edited, Jan 30th 2012 5:49pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#229 Jan 30 2012 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Zam search results. Gbaji mentioned Romney MANY times in 2008. But almost all of them were in January or February, with only 4 being outside of those.


Uh huh. About the time that Romney no longer had a shot at the nomination. And about the time all the focus switched to McCain/Palin. I'm not sure what you think your point is either. How often do I start threads on this forum? So why do you suppose I was talking about those two so often after that point? You really can't noodle this out?

Quote:
Between April 1 and December 2008, you mention McCain 240 times (and, to repeat, Romney 4).


And? You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something. Was I supposed to keep saying "Romney for President" after he lost the nomination? I'm honestly curious what you think would be normal behavior that makes you think that is abnormal.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#230 Jan 30 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
Quote:
And? I continued to argue that Romney was my preferred candidate long after that point.


My point is mostly just that this is false, unless "long after" actually means "weeks after".

One of your Romney posts was after McCain had lost the general election, and you go out of your way to note that you voted for Romeny in the primary (lol at you trying to save face after 7 months of die-herd McCain supporting).

One of the Romney posts is just you stating what the polls "show" two weeks after Romney dropped his bid for the presidency (and you curiously hadn't made any posts in favor of him in April).

One was you saying you though Romney would have been a good VP pick because he was "presidential", but Biden gave McCain room for a more "maverick" VP (quotes and everything yours).

Another post is you stating that Romney would have been a bad VP pick because he would have been a "yawn" candidate.

Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol

Oh, and you start out your posts in February talking about how Romney is the preferential candidate, because you have a bunch of issues with McCain's stances. By the end of the Super Tuesday thread, you state that the only reason you picked Romney over McCain was because McCain was more likely to compromise. Then you say that he was the best candidate because he was the most likely to win of all the Republican nominees.

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#231 Jan 30 2012 at 8:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
So? I posted a lot about Romney when he was still in the running. I didn't post as much about him after he dropped out. I'm still not sure what you think this means. Should I have continued to wave a Romney flag after he was no longer in the race? Isn't that kinda nutty?

Is there any question as to which candidate I preferred back then (cause you know, I talked about him a lot until he dropped out)? So what is the point you're trying to make? That when my guy drops out or is defeated, I'll support the candidate that wins the nomination for my party in preference to the guy the other party is putting up? OMFG! Alert the **** media!!!! Smiley: lol


I'm honestly curious why any of you think this is significant. I pick a candidate that I like. I pick him based on how well that candidate and his stated positions align with my own. I know that Joph wants to make some kind of point about me being a follower and all, but he's putting up a pretty weak argument. I support Romney this time around because I supported him the last time around. I don't particularly take into account who the establishment supports. Hell. I'm not even sure who those people are. Do any of you? Yet you seem to place great stock on whether or not some group of people you don't know happen to support the same or different candidates as I do.


If you have to go through that much mental gyration to try to make some kind of "You're a political puppet" argument, maybe you should take that as a clue that you're wrong? Just a thought!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#232 Jan 30 2012 at 9:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
485 posts
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


Smiley: jawdrop Smiley: lol Smiley: laugh Smiley: lol Smiley: laugh

Sorry, I just had to, especially after reading him say "But for me, it's about stating facts."
http://wow.allakhazam.com/fcluster/gotopost.pl?mid=1327971936300716139
#233 Jan 30 2012 at 10:06 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,420 posts
gbaji wrote:
I posted a lot about Romney when he was still in the running.
Between January 2006 and December 2009 January 1999 and December 2010 you posted about him 21 22 times.

Edited, Jan 30th 2012 11:15pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#234 Jan 30 2012 at 10:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... But didn't you just link a Politico article making some kind of big deal about Romney *not* having as much establishment support as he did in 2008?

Yeah. That doesn't mean what you think it means. Are you denying that Romney was the establishment candidate in 2008? Because that was your ace in the hole earlier. "I'm not a tool of the GOP faithful! I voted Romney in 2008!" Have you come to understand that Romney WAS the establishment choice in 2008?

Likewise, Romney is the establishment choice today. Are you denying that? If you are, I'm just going to laugh at you and how deluded you are.

Quote:
You assume that Romney is the establishment candidate because Politico told you that.

No, Romney is the establishment candidate. That was known before I read said article. Just because you only dance on a string doesn't mean no one else actually gets their news from somewhere. Shit, that's the argument for every "Anyone But Romney" candidate so far. "Don't just go along with what the Washington elites want, pick a real conservative!"

Quote:
How about we simplify it to the fact that I support the candidate in the race that I think best represents the ideals that I believe in as a conservative and leave it at that.

I suppose when the party tells you which candidate that is, it takes a lot of stress off of deciding for yourself Smiley: smile

Being embarrassed and denying that you just do exactly as the party tells you to do doesn't make it "not true" just because you're uncomfortable with reality.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#235 Jan 31 2012 at 12:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
Quote:
So? I posted a lot about Romney when he was still in the running. I didn't post as much about him after he dropped out. I'm still not sure what you think this means. Should I have continued to wave a Romney flag after he was no longer in the race? Isn't that kinda nutty?


You can feel free to continue putting words in my mouth, but I never made that argument. I was just proving that this:

Quote:
I continued to argue that Romney was my preferred candidate long after that point.


Was false. It's a statement YOU offered as a defense against whatever Joph was saying. I'm not commenting one way or the other on whether or not you should have posted more about Romney after Super Tuesday. I'm saying that you didn't, and so your statement that you did was false.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#236 Jan 31 2012 at 1:31 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


Sigged for being the dumbest **** line I've ever seen.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#237 Jan 31 2012 at 1:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,648 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


Sigged for being the dumbest @#%^ing line I've ever seen.


I still prefer the time when he claimed that support from experts was meaningless, because both sides of an argument always have their "experts" and you are obviously just picking a side, and then listening to the experts based on that choice. You know, not the other way around.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#238 Jan 31 2012 at 7:15 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I see he was too scared to look where I told him to look over the weekend. That's fine, already knew he was hiding from reality. I'm most amused that on his first day of vacation he spent it posting here. Smiley: laugh


Nice try, but you haven't told me the AR. All you have said was some general comment. Give me the exact AR that states exactly what you said.

Given the fact that you have taken the time to find old quotes of me in the past on several occasions in an attempt to prove me wrong, yet refuses to prove the AR to support your claim, only supports the notion that you're just making stuff up.

So, what AR states what you said?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#239 Jan 31 2012 at 8:04 AM Rating: Good
******
43,420 posts
Alma wrote:
Nice try, but you haven't told me the AR.
Whatever helps you hide from reality. Good use of vacation time, too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#240 Jan 31 2012 at 2:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... But didn't you just link a Politico article making some kind of big deal about Romney *not* having as much establishment support as he did in 2008?

Yeah. That doesn't mean what you think it means. Are you denying that Romney was the establishment candidate in 2008? Because that was your ace in the hole earlier. "I'm not a tool of the GOP faithful! I voted Romney in 2008!" Have you come to understand that Romney WAS the establishment choice in 2008?


Says who? Politico? Who is this "establishment" you speak of? Who decides who they are and who they support? Sounds like spin to me. What's funny is that I caught a bit of talk radio on the way home yesterday and what were they talking about? How the GOP establishment is afraid of Gingrich and that's why they're throwing their support behind Romney.

Sounds to me like you're the one parroting what you hear Joph. What a coincidence that right when the talking points shift to the GOP establishment attacking Gingrich, you come in here with your "Romney is the GOP establishment pick!!" bit. Funny that I don't recall you saying that before. Wait? Is that perhaps because the liberal talking points for the last 6 months has been how Romney isn't a good candidate because he's been unable to "seal the deal" and get the support of the GOP establishment? And you were parroting *that* talking point too.


You're funny. Really incredibly funny. You're like the model of projection. And utterly unaware of it too!

Quote:
Likewise, Romney is the establishment choice today. Are you denying that? If you are, I'm just going to laugh at you and how deluded you are.


Joph. I don't pay attention to, or care who "the establishment" supports. I really don't. You, on the other hand, seem obsessed with it.

Quote:
Quote:
You assume that Romney is the establishment candidate because Politico told you that.

No, Romney is the establishment candidate. That was known before I read said article. Just because you only dance on a string doesn't mean no one else actually gets their news from somewhere. Shit, that's the argument for every "Anyone But Romney" candidate so far. "Don't just go along with what the Washington elites want, pick a real conservative!"


Um... Except that the Politico article wasn't talking about voter support Joph. They were talking about the big donors and influential folks who make up the GOP establishment being tepid in their support for Romney. They were the ones holding back on their support of him for the last 6 months (or year, if we go all the way back to when that article was written). How do you now switch that around and insist that he was really the establishment pick all along?

Answer: You're parroting whatever the talking heads on your TV tell you. And then projecting that onto me.

Quote:
Being embarrassed and denying that you just do exactly as the party tells you to do doesn't make it "not true" just because you're uncomfortable with reality.


Wow. Just wow. Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Jan 31st 2012 12:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#241 Jan 31 2012 at 2:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I posted a lot about Romney when he was still in the running.
Between January 2006 and December 2009 January 1999 and December 2010 you posted about him 21 22 times.


And? This is what I mean when I say you post facts as though they mean something by themselves. You kinda have to also apply some kind of logic/reason to those facts to draw a conclusion. How do those numbers you just posted refute my claim that Romney was my preferred candidate back in the 2008 run? How does it refute my claim that I argued that Romney had been my pick even after he lost the nomination? Doesn't even mentioning once "I voted for Romney and wanted him to win the primary" fulfill my claim?

Facts are useful if the facts refute something directly (if for example, I'd claimed to have posted more often about Romney after he lost the nomination than before). But they have to be the right facts and used in a way which actually addresses the question at hand. Simply listing off numbers of posts doesn't tell us anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#242 Jan 31 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,420 posts
gbaji wrote:
You kinda have to also apply some kind of logic/reason to those facts to draw a conclusion.
Just because you're too dumb to figure out what the reason behind those facts to draw a conclusion doesn't mean everyone ... or anyone else is, sweety. I do apologize for not holding your hand and walking you down the path, though. See, you said you "posted a lot about Romney when he was still running." I kind of figured that the quote would have at least put you on the right hemisphere, but alas ... Anyway, I just pointed out that no, you did not "post a lot about Romney."

Ever.
gbaji wrote:
How do those numbers you just posted refute my claim that Romney was my preferred candidate back in the 2008 run?
Multitasking too hard, short stack? I didn't refute it. I just disproved your claim you posted a lot about Romney. So simply, even a you should be capable of following. Though, in your defense I guess if you try to obscure arguments you can use your "Argument A" on "Discussion B" and hope everyone else is stupid enough to get confused.

It must hurt you to know that you've picked the wrong place to try such infantile argumentative tactics. You're the only one stupid enough to fall for that.
gbaji wrote:
Facts are useful if the facts refute something directly
You mean like if someone claims to have done something, but the facts don't back up that claim? Thanks, I'm glad you agree I was right, too. Smiley: smile

Edited, Jan 31st 2012 3:55pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#243 Jan 31 2012 at 3:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Says who? Politico? Who is this "establishment" you speak of? Who decides who they are and who they support?

Hahahahahahahahaha....

Like I said, it's hilarious how much more I know about your church than you do.

It's okay. Keep on keepin' on with your bad "independent thinking" self Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#244 Jan 31 2012 at 4:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How do those numbers you just posted refute my claim that Romney was my preferred candidate back in the 2008 run?
Multitasking too hard, short stack? I didn't refute it.


Great! We're done then, right? You've admitted that I was right. WTF?

Quote:
I just disproved your claim you posted a lot about Romney.


A statement made in response to someone insisting that I posted more about Romney before the GOP convention than I did afterwards. Context kinda matters here. A search between Jan 2007 and Jan 2009 shows a total of 20 posts by me mentioning Romney. 15 of those are between Oct 17th 2007 and Feb 14th 2008 (when he was running). The other 5 are after that point (when he dropped out).

So I clearly did post about him most when he was running.


However, my other statement that I posted that I voted for him is also true. Just check the postings after he dropped out:

this:

gbaji wrote:
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
gbaji wrote:
All I ask is that you please please please ask these questions of yourself before throwing your support behind any candidate. Voting is not just a right, it's a responsibility...



Says the guy who voted for Romney.



Yes. Why exactly would that surprise you? His positions and past actions fit very well with my own views. It's not like Romney supporters were passing out from his dreaminess or something...


and this:

gbaji wrote:
And I most certainly did have a whole huge discussion on this board about Mitt Romney and why I voted for him. I mentioned my concerns with McCain. I covered Mitt's position on abortion. I mentioned his experience as Governor. I answered numerous questions about him and tallied what things about him I agree with, and which ones I don't.


and this:

gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Probably not. The Palin pick was the big mistake, it's largely not in dispute. One could argue, I suppose that without here to energize the slack jawed base it would have been worse, but Mitt Romney looked pretty good about October 15th, didn't he?


Of course. Remember, I voted for Romney in the primaries anyway...



So 3 times as many posts about him when he was running versus after he dropped out. But of those after he dropped out, 60% of them were me talking about how I voted for Romney and thought he was a good candidate.


So... Everything I've stated is true. Right? Are we done now? Has the hammer of truth(tm) beaten you down sufficiently?


Edited, Jan 31st 2012 2:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#245 Jan 31 2012 at 4:21 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,420 posts
gbaji wrote:
So I clearly did post about him most when he was running.
I know you want it to be otherwise, but that's not the case. You didn't say you posted most about him when he was running. He said you posted a lot. Again, maybe you have some unique English to Stupid translation you'd like the rest of the world to use to make you feel better, but that's not the case.
gbaji wrote:
Everything I've stated is true.
If by true you mean "the way gbaji spins information in hopes people are too dumb to figure out" then sure. If you mean true by "something that can be proven factual," then no.
gbaji wrote:
Has the hammer of truth(tm) beaten you down sufficiently?
D'aww, you have a cute little squeaky mallet like my daughter? Come back when you learn what "truth" is, and you can pit your little baby toy against my sledgehammer of truth™.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#246 Jan 31 2012 at 4:33 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
You people are goofs. Gbaji is a stock-standard party line "Here's your daily talking points" Republican. Who does the Republican establishment back? Romney. Who does Gbaji back? Surprise! Romney.

You people who are suggesting he'd back someone without the GOP seal of approval haven't been paying attention Smiley: disappointed


Um... So why did I back Romney in 2008? Funny that.

Yeah! Gbaji backed Romney before it was cool. Now it's so mainstream. Smiley: glasses
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#247 Jan 31 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So I clearly did post about him most when he was running.
I know you want it to be otherwise, but that's not the case. You didn't say you posted most about him when he was running. He said you posted a lot. Again, maybe you have some unique English to Stupid translation you'd like the rest of the world to use to make you feel better, but that's not the case.


Wow. And people wonder why I talk about silly semantic arguments all the time.

I made that statement in response to someone (Joph I think) insisting that I didn't talk about having voted for Romney after he dropped out because I posted more often prior to him dropping off. My use of the phrase "a lot" is meaningless. I wasn't making a claim, I was acknowledging what another poster had said (that I posted more about him prior to him dropping out than after).

You want to spin off on some argument about what "a lot" means, by all means, knock yourself out. You're king in the land of the irrelevant I guess!

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Everything I've stated is true.
If by true you mean "the way gbaji spins information in hopes people are too dumb to figure out" then sure. If you mean true by "something that can be proven factual," then no.


Lol. How much is "a lot"? And what does it prove anyway? Again, I wasn't hinging any position on the phrase "a lot". I mean, if it makes you feel better, you're right. I didn't post about him "a lot", I just posted about him 3 times more often when he was running then after he dropped out. Um... Congratulations? What did you win? Nothing. Because the phrase or word used doesn't matter in this case. My point was that I did support him when he was running, and I did talk about having voted for and supporting him after he dropped out.


Both of which are true. You're just arguing word choice. And irrelevant word choice at that.

Edited, Jan 31st 2012 2:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#248 Jan 31 2012 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,676 posts
But your word choice is rarely ever irrelevant.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#249 Jan 31 2012 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,420 posts
gbaji wrote:
How much is "a lot"?
More than 22 versus 350.
gbaji wrote:
And what does it prove anyway?
That you'll spin and try to whine your way out of anything you say incorrectly, no matter how obvious an error you make. It's really fun proving it time and time again, though. Smiley: smile
gbaji wrote:
Because the phrase or word used doesn't matter in this case.
Funny how things that you're mind numbingly wrong about never matter or are irrelevant. You'd think it was a stock position you take or something.

I'll give you an out this time: You could have said it was simply a bad word choice on your part and that'd be the end of that, but no. Instead of the simple "oops," you predictably tried to maneuver in a way that made you believe you're infallible. I realize it's hard for you to argue things that someone else didn't already give you the talking points to, but I hope that exercises like these will one day give you the ability to discuss things in a way that wouldn't embarrass kindergarteners. So far I'm not succeeding. Smiley: frown
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#250 Jan 31 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
But your word choice is rarely ever irrelevant.

Catch him in one of his many, many errors and watch him scream about how his words didn't matter Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#251 Jan 31 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,473 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How much is "a lot"?
More than 22 versus 350.


How about 15 versus 5? Is 15 "a lot" compared to 5?


I used the phrase in response to a statement about how frequently I posted about Romney during the race compared to how often I did after he dropped out. I guess if you want to intentionally compare that to some other random number, proclaim it "not a lot" and claim victory, I can't stop you. I think that's pretty moronic though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 29 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, lolgaxe, Samira, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (25)