Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 23 Oct 2014 in My little pony explains inequality, Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    Grow up!

    An example of hypocrisy: being ok with CIC's comment, but not mine.

    SoftShell says

    I humiliated him in his own thread

    An example of delusion.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in My little pony explains inequality, Dan8267 said:

    A picture of Call It Crazy's "wife".

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in My little pony explains inequality, Dan8267 said:

    The Republican plan is mass extermination of the working class once they are no longer necessary to serve the rich.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in My little pony explains inequality, Dan8267 said:

    Call It Crazy's wife having phone sex.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    Where? I don't see it.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    I quote it so you can understand the simple things in life. Guess it did not work. :(

    I understand differential equations, whereas you quote nonsense from a fake encyclopedia that claimed Plato was an ancient Hawaiian weatherman and a pupil of Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in My little pony explains inequality, Dan8267 said:

    An even better depiction of the world.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    I hate it when I can't do my own thinking and have to be part of a herd based on other peoples thinking. It becomes a lot like religion. I'm sticking to being "independent"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

    Anyone who quotes Wikipedia is demonstrating mindless herd behavior and the complete lack of independent thought, not to mention intellectual sloth.

    Wikipedia, the opium of the masses.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    Is liberalism some kinda religion where you follow every written word based on someone hearing strange voices?

    No, liberalism is a specific philosophy regarding what powers government should and should not have over the social interactions and activities of the people.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in How about a Clinton Warren ticket, Dan8267 said:

    bob2356 says

    What idiot disliked an offer of information on NZ travel? Someone out there having a bad hemorrhoid day?

    There are trolls on this site, conservatives, who dislike anything said by someone they hate. They even disliked a link to some Health Savings Account FAQ. That shows how petty they are.

    I consider it a badge of honor that I've pissed off the trolls enough that they feel compelled to spend their time disliking all my posts. As if the number of dislikes a user gets on PatNet means anything to anyone.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    SoftShell says

    so you have now publicly supported the voter ID issue. No getting around it.

    Honey, it does not matter how you try to twist my words. Nothing I've said supports the voter suppression laws. No honest person would say such a thing and your statement is simply ridiculous.

    My statement and my stance is clearly that even convicted felons should not be denied the right to vote.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    Dan8267 says

    Conclusion, nothing you said indicates any level of liberalism.

    OK, 5 more:

    6. I believe in Gay rights.

    7. I believe in women's rights.

    8. Full equality for all regardless of race, color, creed and whatever else.

    9. Animal rights. Ban factory farms. Ban meat.

    10. Universal health care.

    How's that Dan? I'm more librul than you.

    6 through 9 would make you somewhat liberal if they were true. Unfortunately, they clearly are not based on your own words on this site.

    10 is merely an economic policy and is irrelevant to the philosophy of liberalism. You still don't comprehend that simple idea no matter how much I simplify it for you. Liberalism says NOTHING about economics.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    SoftShell says

    you do realize this statement gives credence to proposed voter ID laws.

    If voting is a privilege

    No it doesn't as voting should be a right. Two wrongs don't make a right, no pun intended.

    The sole purpose of the voting ID laws is to rig elections. There is no reason why society should tolerate that.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    Peter P says

    Anything repeated enough becomes the truth.

    Truth is not an attribute. It is merely a perception of those who care enough.

    On that we disagree. No matter how many times I say that I'm having sex with Scarlett Johansson, it's not the same thing as actually having sex with her. And it does not matter how much I desire that to be true.

    I think the universe you're talking about is Green Lantern. Come to think of it, why doesn't Jordan Hal construct a green Scarlett Johansson?

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    Sounds like Republican values too.

    If only that were true. It used to be before Republicans adopted The Southern Strategy in the 1950s. It clearly isn't today. You are a perfect example.

    1. All persons have the same rights. No one has privileges.

    You believe that cops have privileges and have argued with me when I stated that they do not. You also believe that cops' privileges trump civil rights.

    2. Rights, by definition, cannot be taken away. A freedom that can be taken away is, by definition, a privilege.

    I sincerely doubt that you believe convicted felons should be allowed to vote. Of course, they should be if voting is an actual right, not a privilege.

    3. All persons are equal under law.

    Again, you do not believe that civilians are equal to cops under law. And you certainly don't believe that blacks should be equal under law.

    The disproportional arrest of blacks for drug use is proof that in practice, black Americans are not equal under law.

    4. The only laws that should exist are those protecting rights. Note that this includes public property rights, which is why pollution should be illegal. The environment is public property.

    I don't remember where or not you're one of the conservatives that bitch and moan about environmental regulations, but in order to meet this criteria, you have to be against fossil fuel usage, particularly coal power plants and fracking.

    5. People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they aren't violating the rights of others. However, polluting, fraud, the open system of bribery we call lobbying, and systematically rigging the system to keep people impoverish is a violation of basic human and civil rights. In contrast, smoking weed and running around nude in public is not.

    Given your statements regarding the case in which a celebrity is accused of having sex in public, you clearly do not believe in the principle that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they aren't violating the rights of others. You are very much in favor of the concept of victimless crimes.

    Strategist says

    It's still a liberal stance. Republican stance is pro life.

    It does not matter how many times you repeat an erroneous statement, it does not become true. Both pro-life and pro-choice stances are consistent with the definition of liberalism.

    The definition of liberalism has nothing to do with the arbitrary divisions of left-right politics in America or the Democratic and Republican parties. In fact, liberalism has nothing to do with America or any other particular country or culture.

    And not all Republicans are pro-life. Many Republicans have had abortions or persuaded their lovers or daughters (well, same thing in red states) to get abortions.

    Strategist says

    It's still a liberal stance. Republicans are more likely to be capitalists.

    Irrelevant. Even if 100% of cars where red, the definition of car would have nothing to do with color.

    Strategist says

    Sounds liberal-ish to me.

    Of course it would. Like most conservatives, you have great misunderstandings of a multitude of subject matters. That's a reflection on how fucked up your world view is, not a reflection on the actual state of the world.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    Strategist says

    Easy - piece of cake:

    1. I am an agnostic.
    Irrelevant. Liberalism is a social philosophy, not a religious status.

    Granted many liberals are agnostic or atheistic, but that's because intelligent people tend to be liberal and tend to disbelieve in fairytales. Correlation is not causality.

    2. I am a strong believer in alternative energy.
    Irrelevant. Liberalism is a social philosophy, not an energy policy.

    Granted many liberals tend to be in favor of environmental protection because they don't want the world's ecosystem to collapse, but that's because intelligent people tend to be liberal and tend to not want policies that will cause our species's extinction.

    3. All education should be completely free.
    Irrelevant. Socializing the cost of something is an economic strategy. Despite it's name, socialism is NOT a social philosophy, but an economic strategy.

    Granted, liberals tend to be pro-education because intelligent people tend to be liberals and tend to like education and want the masses to be more educated, knowledgeable, and intelligent so that our republic can make wiser decisions.

    4. I believe in high death taxes for the very rich.
    Irrelevant. Liberalism is a social philosophy, not a taxation policy. Nor is liberalism an economic philosophy at all. Liberals can and do have vastly different economic philosophies.

    The opposite of fiscally conservative is NOT fiscally liberal, but rather, fiscally aggressive. Fiscal conservationism has NOTHING to do with financial conservatism. The the word conservative has two unrelated meanings in those two terms.

    5. Pro choice.
    Irrelevant. A liberal can be anywhere on the pro-life / pro-choice spectrum. The question is when does an offspring become a person. That question I answered in this thread.

    However, a liberal who is pro-life from conception is simply someone who believes that personhood begins at that point and therefore is concerned about the rights of the offspring. A liberal who is pro-choice until the second trimester simply believes that personhood begins at the start of the second trimester. Neither is inconsistent with the philosophy of liberalism.

    Conclusion, nothing you said indicates any level of liberalism.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    Dan8267 says

    We liberals believe

    1. All persons have the same rights. No one has privileges.

    2. Rights, by definition, cannot be taken away. A freedom that can be taken away is, by definition, a privilege.

    3. All persons are equal under law.

    4. The only laws that should exist are those protecting rights. Note that this includes public property rights, which is why pollution should be illegal. The environment is public property.

    5. People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they aren't violating the rights of others. However, polluting, fraud, the open system of bribery we call lobbying, and systematically rigging the system to keep people impoverish is a violation of basic human and civil rights. In contrast, smoking weed and running around nude in public is not.

    Liberal does NOT mean

    1. Pro-choice.
    The question of when an offspring becomes a person and is entitled to rights is outside the scope of liberalism. Liberals may be anywhere in the spectrum of pro-life to pro-choice.

    2. Socialistic or Communistic
    These are economic issues and as liberalism is a social philosophy, liberals can and do subscribe to many, many different economic philosophies.

    3. Left or democrats
    Although social conservatism has become code for bigotry and is therefore incompatible with liberalism, that does not mean the left or democrats are liberals or that liberals are democrats. I view the Democratic Party as simply being the far less evil of the two parties, but that doesn't mean I don't think their evil. They are just a minor evil compared to the Republicans.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in How about a Clinton Warren ticket, Dan8267 said:

    Heraclitusstudent says

    About a Warren-Clinton ticket instead?

    Hillary Clinton would never go for that. She wants to be president, badly. Being elected as VP 2 years from now would mean at least 8 more years on top of that before she could run for president, and she's 66 years old right now. She's not going to want to run at age 76 as a two-term presidency would go on until she's 84.

    Elizabeth Warren is 65, so she's in the same boat. For both Clinton and Warren, the 2016 election and the 2020 election (if the Republicans win in 2016) are the only chances they have to be president. And the 2020 window is far less probable as it requires an intervening one-term Republican president.

    So, we're basically going to have to choose between Clinton and Warren. I don't see anything Hillary Clinton has to offer in terms of ethics, policy, or credibility. Sure, she might be popular with some Democrats, but all those Democrats would vote for Warren as well. The only good thing about getting HC into the Oval Office, in my opinion, is that it would piss off the conservative base, but that's not worth sacrificing a Warren administration.

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in How about a Clinton Warren ticket, Dan8267 said:

    mell says

    I hope a libertarian Republican will run, win the primaries and beat her. As close as it gets for a fiscal conservative and social liberal.

    I thought the Republican base had cleansed their party of all social liberals.

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in How about a Clinton Warren ticket, Dan8267 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    1) No girlfriend or wife
    wrong

    2) No kids
    By choice

    3) rent an apartment

    Wrong

    4) a red car
    Yeah, it's in my picture. And I never even think about it, but you clearly obsess over it out of jealousy.

    5) Spend all your free time watching fantasy Youtube videos
    Wrong

    You are projecting your life's disappointments and acting like a childish troll. That's why you just got banned from my threads.

    And why are you so obsessed with me anyway? What a loser you must be to compulsively follow someone you never even met.

    Call it Crazy says

    1) a wife

    2) 3 kids

    3) 3 grandchildren

    4) own a large house

    5) 2 new cars

    6) a boat

    7) a dog

    Real men don't feel the need to brag, and none of those things are an accomplishment.

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in How about a Clinton Warren ticket, Dan8267 said:

    Well, if you are going to troll, I'm no longer going to tolerate you disrupting my threads. Grow up and talk about subjects, including politics like an adult, and you'll be allowed back. Until then, fuck off.

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in How about a Clinton Warren ticket, Dan8267 said:

    I have a fast car and a large penis, both of which your wife can attest to.

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    WE don't live in an artificial, delusional Youtube world

    More assertions, no evidence.

    Please put me on ignore. You're a sexually frustrated old man who can't get his dick up so you make baseless attacks on people on the Internet who obviously have better lives than you can ever hope for.

    You're a morally bankrupt, racist loser who has never accomplished anything in life and is still stupid enough to believe that Fox News is accurate.

    Your only contribution to PatNet is demonstrating the need for a ban button.

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in Stunning Siphonophore, Dan8267 said:

    What can I say, stupidity brings out the asshole in me.

    Besides, you and Crazy are the most morally bankrupt people I've ever had the displeasure to interact with. And his vile posts pollute every conversation.

  • On 22 Oct 2014 in How about a Clinton Warren ticket, Dan8267 said:

    Call it Crazy says

    No, I'm making the point that all videos YOU post have no informative value...

    Yet you never support that assertion.

    Call it Crazy says

    The scary part is that YOU use Youtube videos as your definitive source for correct and accurate information

    You must be ignoring the multitude of written sources I reference. Not surprising given your literacy level.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 472 milliseconds to create.