Vinyl
« prev   politics   next »

1
1

Vinyl

By anonymous following x   2013 Oct 9, 4:43am 6,362 views   20 comments   watch   quote     share    


Hunker in the Bunker

1   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 4:44am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I don't think being a broken record is compelling in any thread. Besides you run away when asked to defend your position.

2   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 5:38am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Blah blah rhetoric blah blah repeat your blind assertion blah blah rhetoric blah blah wash, rinse, repeat blah blah.

Do you even have a single reason why you think they are the same? The one specific you mentioned was the national debt, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of both sides being the same since it was balanced under Clinton in 2000.

Specifics kill you like they do any blowhard.

3   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 7:16am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The Professor says

iwog says

Specifics kill you like they do any blowhard.

You are projecting again.

Do you still believe there was no civilization in what is now the US before the revolution?

Now you want to abandon your entire reason for posting the thread and go back to a different thread where you perceive you have an advantage.

Really sad people are this intellectually broken, but that is the trend isn't it.

4   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 7:34am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The Professor says

They both perpetuate these endless wars. Both Bush and Obama have extended the "state of emergency" for the last dozen years. Both sides have taken our rights away.

Nope, you're full of shit. You don't have the right to simply make up facts to support your premise. McCain ran on "NO SURRENDER IN IRAQ!" while Obama ran on ending the Iraq war which he quickly did. That's a black and white issue. It was the BIGGEST issue to voters in 2008 and the BIGGEST military action in the last 40 years. It is dishonest as hell to simply pretend a black and white position on the biggest military action in 40 years means nothing. It's a total fail.

Now as to smaller military actions, and by smaller I mean an order of magnitude smaller in both manpower and cost, there are a few similarities and massive differences. The Afghanistan war WILL end during Obama's presidency. Maybe later than we hope, but it will end. After much bluster and posturing, Syria was averted and goals were accomplished. I think I'm 100% correct in assuming that McCain and/or Romney would have simply launched a police action. Torture was ended and is now illegal by explicit order of the president. Libya was extremely small by ALL measures and concluded with no boots on the ground. If not black and white, the differences are extremely stark.

So lets compare this detailed analysis to how your brain works. "Both extended the state of emergency" What does this even mean? It means nothing and everything. It's an empty talking point.

"Both sides have take our rights away." This one is even worse. Besides being completely subjective, it also means nothing and everything. It's another empty talking point.

5   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 7:51am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The Professor says

The entire reason I posted this thread was because you deleted my opinion. I referenced back to the other thread to illustrate how you avoid any questions that show your lack of credibility.

Yeah whatever. The entire reason you posted in the first place was to assert your opinion that both parties are the same without a shred of support. You just wanted to spam.

The Professor says

Your historical ignorance does not illustrate your lack of credibility. Your inability to admit you are wrong and your constant personal attacks do.

Wow a personal attack and a complaint about a personal attack in the same paragraph!!!! Nice work. LOL

6   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 7:52am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Gotcha so now the little baby is deleting me.

Where I delete a spammed cliche, you delete actual arguments.

I'm happy with that. It proves everything I've ever said about you.

7   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 8:00am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The Professor says

Pointing out your historical ignorance is not a personal attack.

Obviously you're too stupid to know what the definition of "personal attack" is.

8   mell   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 8:27am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

The Professor says

Example of personal attack:

iwog says

Obviously you're too stupid to know what the definition of "personal attack" is.

Ignorance is no sin.

This has forum has taken on a debate culture of hostility and personal attacks on a massive scale. And it comes 80% (80/20 rule) from people who perceive themselves as democrats, progressives or Obama (aka lesser of two evil) supporters. Food for thought ;)

9   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 8:45am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says

This has forum has taken on a debate culture of hostility and personal attacks on a massive scale. And it comes 80% (80/20 rule) from people who perceive themselves as democrats, progressives or Obama (aka lesser of two evil) supporters. Food for thought ;)

Lie = food for thought?

Making up things is a poor source for facts.

10   David9   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 9, 8:53am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says

This has forum has taken on a debate culture of hostility and personal attacks
on a massive scale.

Regardless of the breakdown analysis, I can't believe a grown man told me to 'suck on an exhaust pipe..'

Ever notice, the ratio of men to women here is far leaning towards the male species? It's a total cock /sword/dick fight sometimes. I'm certainly no expert, but I think this is a turn off to women who would view it as immature and childish.

11   David9   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 9, 9:02am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The Professor says

What persona told you to do that?

I don't really want to tattle or provoke a smear thread.

I will say, this site still has many things going for it, but for me, such behaviour as I quoted is a turn off. I simply don't like it.

True, it may very well not be a man, still, what type of person would get off saying such things? repeatedly and not just to me?

12   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 9:07am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The biggest problem with the internet is how the anonymous nature of screen names can obscure all knowledge and expertise. Pretty much any idiot with a conspiracy blog can pretend he's an expert and match himself up with anyone else. (note the 9/11 truther circle jerk)

I'm a stone cold expert on bankruptcy law because I've worked in the field for 20 years. Yet occasionally I will be forced to match wits (even in person believe it or not) with someone who bought a do-it-yourself guide on bankruptcy filing and decides he/she is an expert to be reckoned with.

The last time this happened, a woman lost her home and the refusal to listen to a real expert cost her over $100,000 but I digress.

Unfortunately the lack of reputation, certification, and experience possessed by words on a screen means that genuine idiots have almost the exact same forum as genuine experts. I find this situation untenable. There are some EXTREMELY stupid people in this forum, the "professor" being one of them, and attempting to carry on a civil conversation is an exercise in futility.

Why? I just demonstrated why.

This thread was a blast that both political parties are the same. I took the challenge and presented a case. A REAL case with REAL arguments. "Professor" then ran away from his own topic, refused to discuss it, and decided he wanted to talk about Indians instead.

This is so mind-numbingly idiotic that there really isn't anywhere to go from here. It happens again and again and again and again in this forum because there are no repercussions. Even in the most extreme case I can think of, RentingForHalfTheCost compulsively lying about all sorts of things, there is no shame. There is no retreat. There aren't any standards because there aren't any societal penalties on a message forum.

It is someone screaming "HEAR ME ROAR!" then hiding in a corner afraid that someone might disagree.

So why the personal attacks? The insults? The colorful language? Because it's the one area that you can attempt to build a reputation in an otherwise anonymous mosh pit. Perhaps if Mr. Professor is labeled an idiot enough times, people would stop taking him seriously. At least it's a hope.

If someone called me stupid, I'd simply ask why they thought I was stupid and the conversation would end. People who call me stupid can't actually PROVE I said something stupid, they are just children lashing out. When I call someone else stupid, they usually disappear or cry like a baby that I'm using insults. The United States is a twilight zone right now and this type of discourse is yet another symptom.

13   David9   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 9, 9:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

The United States is a twilight zone right now and this type of discourse is yet
another symptom.

Right on. !

The thread topic is not what I consider to be mentally ill people who spew vile insults. But still some good reading never the less.

14   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 9:51am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The Professor says

I never called you stupid. I called you ignorant of history. I PROVED it.

Nope you didn't. All you proved is you don't know what civilization means.

So let us examine this very simple conversation in better detail to find out why you failed:

- "Professor": You're ignorant of history because the Indians did have a civilization.
- Iwog: Nope you're wrong because what you call "civilization" is not what anyone else in the educated world calls a civilization.

My assertion is that you don't know what civilization means. I proved it but you apparently disagree with my evidence. I'll present it again since you persist in being an asshole:

Here is the #1 definition from Webster:

1a: a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained

Now I have just proven you wrong. How? By demonstrating that there is a well respected definition of "civilization" that your native Americans CANNOT meet. (please don't be an ass and drag Aztecs or Mayans into this, their culture was not involved in American expansion)

So what would your next move be? Where do you go next? You've only got one choice, and that would be to provide WITH CITATIONS a different definition of civilization that contradicts mine.

However even if you could produce such a thing, I still wouldn't be wrong. I'd be absolutely correct in the context in which I was making the argument. You MIGHT be correct in a different context, but that wouldn't make me "ignorant of history". It would just make my perspective different.

HOWEVER what did you really do?? You whined lie a little baby. You called me ignorant over and over again. You claimed success while at the same time refusing to make the next move. You ran down the street saying "I WIN I WIN I WIN" with your hands held over your ears. You did NOT appeal to authority on your stupid semantics game, you simply abandoned the game and turned into a fucking idiot.

Case closed. You don't know what you're doing, how to construct an argument or even what my original point was. I'm calling you an idiot because you're an idiot. You exist in your own little insane fantasy and you cry like a stuck pig when that fantasy is disturbed. You don't WANT to find the alternative meaning of civilization because you highly suspect that you screwed up. Therefore you've got nothing left. You become a troll.

15   humanity   ignore (0)   2013 Oct 9, 10:17am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The Professor says

iwog says

Making up things is a poor source for facts.

Yep. For instance:

iwog says

The Indian tribes never had a nation in any sense of the word. They were nomadic, they occupied huge tracts of land while utilizing almost none of it, and for thousands of years they were stagnant as a race with a low life expectancy and a complete lack of cities and economic organization.

This was an argument about semantics only. One could easily argue either side. It depends on your definition of nation, or civilization.

But Iwogs definitions were implied by his expressed view. You could have just said "I define a nation differently than you," and move on to something else. There isn't a clear right or wrong. But what Iwog was saying was understood, and I think the original context was about a moral judgement as to whether it was inevitable that a more advanced nation would take this part of the continent from the indigenous people. And it was.

They didn't have to get fucked over so badly though.

16   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 11:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The Professor says

iwog says

You did NOT appeal to authority on your stupid semantics game, you simply abandoned the game and turned into a fucking idiot.

You're projecting again.

Translation: "I know you are but what am I?"

You are the gift that keeps on giving. LOL

17   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 12:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Thanks. I'm glad we're happy now.

18   iwog   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 12:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

I've already spoken to you about 9/11. I've already said I'm not qualified to determine the source of the collapse, therefore I rely on experts in the field to make that determination. You're not qualified either.

All the experts on building demolition say that there was no controlled demolition. As long as you prefer the testimony of non-experts on crack websites over genuine professionals in the field, you're not going to change your mind.

19   Bigsby   ignore (10)   2013 Oct 9, 12:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The Professor says

@iwog Maybe you are the guy that can convince me that there was no cover-up involved in the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11. I do not want to believe that there are people so evil in our government.

That should be the dictionary definition of disingenuous. You have posted ludicrous comment after ludicrous comment, video after video on your 9-11 conspiracy beliefs. Every single response from every single person who has pointed out issues with what you say has been waved away, deflected or simply ignored. You have already made up your mind and nothing anybody may say will change it.

20   BlueSardine   ignore (1)   2013 Oct 9, 2:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Gotcha so now the little baby is deleting me.


Comment as anon_3c98d or log in at top of page: