Dumb things conservatives say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

I agree in principle, but the issue is "too big to fail." If these larger institutions do get themselves to a point of failing, they take so much down with them when they go that the results are catastrophic. I'm not sure what the solution is.

---

Nothing should be to big to fail. Period. If there is not the threat of failure, people can and will do anything. If you could never die no matter what happened to you, wouldn't you take risks you wouldn't normally take? Same with being to big to fail, they can take insane risks, because they know the government got their backs. Let the fuckers fail.

There should be some oversight, but no "bail outs". That's where we fucked up. If a bank doing shady things is on the verge of collapse, and it would cause our entire system to buckle and the country itself to be destroyed... guess what.. we fucked up and likely deserve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

We've had this discussion before and you were simplistically wrong before.

---

Really? Provide a link and the post(s) where I was "simplistically wrong". You might be having those phantom discussions in your head again.. with your imaginary friend.

Quote:

---

Short term share price boosting and individual bonus boosting produce all sorts of incentives to make loans that will never be repaid. Add all the financial instruments used to profit off those loans to the table and banks can go wild.

---

How long do you believe banks who use this as their main practice will stay in business without government buying their toxic assets? Short term.. sure, I could see it.. but once the loans aren't repaid and start crashing.. what happens to that bank or the institute that purchased these toxic asset? The money has to come from somewhere.. and as long as it's not coming from the government, some company will take a financial beating and will be out of business.

Banks will always, always, always protect their bottom line.

Quote:

---

Pretend that deregulation will somehow make it better? It gets even worse.

---

I'm not talking about deregulation (but you already knew this..) I'm talking about the government holding the bag for risky loans.

Government has a role in regulating banks and other financial entities... but guaranteeing risky loans just so more people can have homes was dumb from the onset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

So now you want open borders. Got it.

---

http://memestorage.com/_nw/58/98514998.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Really? Provide a link and the post(s) where I was "simplistically wrong". You might be having those phantom discussions in your head again.. with your imaginary friend.




How long do you believe banks who use this as their main practice will stay in business without government buying their toxic assets? Short term.. sure, I could see it.. but once the loans aren't repaid and start crashing.. what happens to that bank or the institute that purchased these toxic asset? The money has to come from somewhere.. and as long as it's not coming from the government, some company will take a financial beating and will be out of business.

Banks will always, always, always protect their bottom line.



I'm not talking about deregulation (but you already knew this..) I'm talking about the government holding the bag for risky loans.

Government has a role in regulating banks and other financial entities... but guaranteeing risky loans just so more people can have homes was dumb from the onset.

---

PB: "Banks would never make loans to bad people without government guarantees!"
WB: "Ever look at the current auto loan bubble?"

These people don't care if the bank runs into trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Liberals do something stupid and conservatives lose their mind.

Conservatives do something stupid and liberals lose their mind.

Both do something stupid at the same time and no one gives a shit.

---

You must hate America, otherwise you would blindly support one of the two terrible mainstream parties like real patriots. You're probably also against the patriot act, which, by definition, makes you a terrorist. Reported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

PB: "Banks would never make loans to bad people without government guarantees!"
WB: "Ever look at the current auto loan bubble?"

These people don't care if the bank runs into trouble.

---

Here's a more accurate version of events:

PB: Banks wouldn't consistently give bad loans if there was no way of collecting the money. Banks aren't in the business of losing money.
WB: Wrong. I'll just create your hyperbolic viewpoints so I can finally be right about something. You want everything deregulated. You want open borders. Derp, derp, derp! AYN RAND COLLECTED SS!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Here's a more accurate version of events:

PB: Banks wouldn't consistently give bad loans if there was no way of collecting the money. Banks aren't in the business of losing money.
WB: Wrong. I'll just create your hyperbolic viewpoints so I can finally be right about something. You want everything deregulated. You want open borders. Derp, derp, derp! AYN RAND COLLECTED SS!!!

---

It's really stunning when you're so messed up you take responses to other people as to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

So now you want open borders. Got it.

---

? Since you asked, I'd prefer a 10 mile buffer zone packed full of life saving nuclear landmines along the Mexican border. It's more humane. Maybe offer a $100 prize for anyone who makes it across. That's like a trillion dollars in Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

It's really stunning when you're so messed up you take responses to other people as to you.

---

The only stunning part is: You continue to use hyperbolic bullshit to try an attempt to be right.

I never said that banks NEVER give out loans they can't later on collect from. That was your biggest "point" so far in the discussion.

Stop being an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

We've had this discussion before and you were simplistically wrong before.

---

Still waiting for the quotes on this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

The only stunning part is: You continue to use hyperbolic bullshit to try an attempt to be right.

I never said that banks NEVER give out loans they can't later on collect from. That was your biggest "point" so far in the discussion.

Stop being an idiot.

---

So you decided to randomly respond to something I said to Wrathbringer for what reason again?

You just claimed that they only do it when the government is offering guarantees so derp derp deregulation will protect us!

Ever studied America before the Federal Reserve system?

Want to count up how many times banks gave out loans without guarantees?

Your "points" are laughable and remain so. You can go on and pretend me talking to other people is talking to you some more if it makes you feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

So you decided to randomly respond to something I said to Wrathbringer for what reason again?

---

Because it illustrates a pattern for you... when you are wrong, you simply make up the other person's viewpoint to show that you are right.

You aren't.

Quote:

---

You just claimed that they only do it when the government is offering guarantees so derp derp deregulation will protect us!

---

Wrong. No one but you has made the claim to deregulate banking. Just because I am calling for the government to let them fail next time doesn't mean "derp derp deregulate!". Again, hyperbolic bullshit from you.

Quote:

---

Ever studied America before the Federal Reserve system?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Want to count up how many times banks gave out loans without guarantees?

---

I'll dumb this down for you. Just a very simple, basic question that even someone like you can understand and answer. Here we go:

If a bank gave out loans on a consistent basis that they knew they will never collect.. how long do you believe that this bank will be solvent and in business?

Quote:

---

Your "points" are laughable and remain so. You can go on and pretend me talking to other people is talking to you some more if it makes you feel better.

---

I should only be allowed to comment on the stupidity you direct to me? You must be new to the way forums work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Because it illustrates a pattern for you... when you are wrong, you simply make up the other person's viewpoint to show that you are right.

You aren't.



Wrong. No one but you has made the claim to deregulate banking. Just because I am calling for the government to let them fail next time doesn't mean "derp derp deregulate!". Again, hyperbolic bullshit from you.



Yes.



I'll dumb this down for you. Just a very simple, basic question that even someone like you can understand and answer. Here we go:

If a bank gave out loans on a consistent basis that they knew they will never collect.. how long do you believe that this bank will be solvent and in business?



I should only be allowed to comment on the stupidity you direct to me? You must be new to the way forums work.

---

Now we're back to it again. Go take a look at the current auto loan bubble. You're just not correct no matter how many ways you try to frame it. You somehow think that banks only ever do self preserving actions. American history and the American present are full of illustrations that this isn't the case. I know you don't want it to be this way. It just is. Loan guarantees don't have to exist to make it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Now we're back to it again. Go take a look at the current auto loan bubble. You're just not correct no matter how many ways you try to frame it. You somehow think that banks only ever do self preserving actions. American history and the American present are full of illustrations that this isn't the case. I know you don't want it to be this way. It just is. Loan guarantees don't have to exist to make it happen.

---

Again.. back to hyperbole. It's a crutch, used by the limited minds to prop up their arguments.

The way you use it, it's way past crutch.. it's the full wheelchair.

The auto bubble?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...rblown-for-now

Again, here is the simple question I posed to you that we still can't get an answer from you on...

If a bank gave out loans on a consistent basis that they knew they will never collect.. how long do you believe that this bank will be solvent and in business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Again.. back to hyperbole. It's a crutch, used by the limited minds to prop up their arguments.

The way you use it, it's way past crutch.. it's the full wheelchair.

The auto bubble?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...rblown-for-now

Again, here is the simple question I posed to you that we still can't get an answer from you on...

If a bank gave out loans on a consistent basis that they knew they will never collect.. how long do you believe that this bank will be solvent and in business?

---

He won't answer the question, as it would destroy his world view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

So you decided to randomly respond to something I said to Wrathbringer for what reason again?

---

Because this is America.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/up...-tornadoes.jpg

Fuck the banks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Again.. back to hyperbole. It's a crutch, used by the limited minds to prop up their arguments.

The way you use it, it's way past crutch.. it's the full wheelchair.

The auto bubble?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...rblown-for-now

Again, here is the simple question I posed to you that we still can't get an answer from you on...

If a bank gave out loans on a consistent basis that they knew they will never collect.. how long do you believe that this bank will be solvent and in business?

---

The fact that banks will make terrible loans without loan guarantees is a fact. That you can't wrap your head around the notion of a financial institution making a poor choice reveals something about you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

The fact that banks will make terrible loans without loan guarantees is a fact.

---

No one is disputing this. I also am not going to dispute your next brilliant "point" that sometimes banks have their loans defaulted on.

Quote:

---

That you can't wrap your head around the notion of a financial institution making a poor choice reveals something about you.

---

Where have I made the post that a bank can't make a poor choice?

So.. have you been able to come up with an answer to my simple question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

No one is disputing this. I also am not going to dispute your next brilliant "point" that sometimes banks have their loans defaulted on.



Where have I made the post that a bank can't make a poor choice?

So.. have you been able to come up with an answer to my simple question?

---

So you've basically decided, unilaterally, to back away from what we were actually discussing and to somehow act like I've said that this is a good business practice? You're a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

So you've basically decided, unilaterally, to back away from what we were actually discussing and to somehow act like I've said that this is a good business practice? You're a joke.

---

Actually, I'm still saying that without government bailouts and guarantees, banks will not give widespread loans to people/companies they already know can't pay them back. Same as always.

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Actually, I'm still saying that without government bailouts and guarantees, banks will not give widespread loans to people/companies they already know can't pay them back. Same as always.

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WB

The fact that banks will make terrible loans without loan guarantees is a fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PB

No one is disputing this.

---

It's full of idiocy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

It's full of idiocy.

---

Do you think that banks would make even more bad loans if they knew the government would bail them out?

Do you think banks would make less bad loans if they knew the government wouldn't bail them out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Do you think that banks would make even more bad loans if they knew the government would bail them out?

Do you think banks would make less bad loans if they knew the government wouldn't bail them out?

---

Do you think casually destroying our economy is a good idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

It's really stunning when you're so messed up you take responses to other people as to you.

---

Which you, of course, never do yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Do you think casually destroying our economy is a good idea?

---

It was a simple yes or no question. Watch now as I demonstrate how to properly answer a yes or no question:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Do you think casually destroying our economy is a good idea?

---

No.

Now let me try again:

Do you think that banks would make even more bad loans if they knew the government would bail them out?

Do you think banks would make less bad loans if they knew the government wouldn't bail them out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

It was a simple yes or no question.

Let me try again:

Do you think that banks would make even more bad loans if they knew the government would bail them out?

Do you think banks would make less bad loans if they knew the government wouldn't bail them out?

---

We're playing Socratics.

Do you think allowing the spiraling failure of a series of banks is a good idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Do you think that banks would make even more bad loans if they knew the government would bail them out?

Do you think banks would make less bad loans if they knew the government wouldn't bail them out?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Do you think casually destroying our economy is a good idea?

---

Apparently WB thinks banks making 'bad' loans is good for the economy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Do you think casually destroying our economy is a good idea?

---

You avoided answering the questions. I wonder why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

We're playing Socratics.

Do you think allowing the spiraling failure of a series of banks is a good idea?

---

Do you think banks would be more careful in who they give out loans to if the government wasn't going to bail them out?

Do you think banks would be more reckless in who they give out loans to if the government was going to bail them out?

Why is this so difficult for you to answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Liberals do something stupid and conservatives lose their mind.

Conservatives do something stupid and liberals lose their mind.

Both do something stupid at the same time and no one gives a shit.

---

As a moderate, I am happy to let you know when your criticisms have merit. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

If a bank gave out loans on a consistent basis that they knew they will never collect.. how long do you believe that this bank will be solvent and in business?

---

That bank? Not long. Now that bank's staff are unemployed, and some get rehired at another bank... and the process starts again, because it wasn't THEIR fault the bank went under. It was Obama, or regulation, or El Niño, or etc.

The issue is that Citicorp, and banking institutions in general, wanted risky behaviour that was, under Dodd-frank, disallowed for government protection, to be again eligible for protection. They got what they wanted, because they like those risky endeavors but don't like the actual risk. This is a bad deal for the American public. Is anyone disagreeing with this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Do you think banks would be more careful in who they give out loans to if the government wasn't going to bail them out?

Do you think banks would be more reckless in who they give out loans to if the government was going to bail them out?

---

What do you think a total meltdown of OUR banking system would do to the world economy and our future given the impact of Ireland, Greece, and Cyprus having bank meltdowns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

What do you think a total meltdown of OUR banking system would do to the world economy and our future given the impact of Ireland, Greece, and Cyprus having bank meltdowns?

---

Why do you refuse to answer these simple questions that I ask?

What is the reason you keep dodging giving a simple straight answer?

You do know that you can both answer the question and ask one of your own, right? You don't have to choose one or the other. Watch now as I demonstrate:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

What do you think a total meltdown of OUR banking system would do to the world economy and our future given the impact of Ireland, Greece, and Cyprus having bank meltdowns?

---

Bad things.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's try this again:

Do you think banks would be more careful in who they give out loans to if the government wasn't going to bail them out?

Do you think banks would be more reckless in who they give out loans to if the government was going to bail them out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

It's full of idiocy.

---

Translation: I don't understand big words like "widespread" and I'm still asking an adult to help me answer that question...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

The issue is that Citicorp, and banking institutions in general, wanted risky behaviour that was, under Dodd-frank, disallowed for government protection, to be again eligible for protection. They got what they wanted, because they like those risky endeavors but don't like the actual risk. This is a bad deal for the American public. Is anyone disagreeing with this?

---

It seems the avowed conservatives of the PC would rather sick their fingers in their ears and ignore that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

The issue is that Citicorp, and banking institutions in general, wanted risky behaviour that was, under Dodd-frank, disallowed for government protection, to be again eligible for protection. They got what they wanted, because they like those risky endeavors but don't like the actual risk. This is a bad deal for the American public. Is anyone disagreeing with this?

---

No.

But let's be honest, there was plenty of shit in the Dodd-Frank that wasn't good either. It was well intended, but then again, so is the road to H-E-L-L!~!~!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

It seems the avowed conservatives of the PC would rather sick their fingers in their ears and ignore that one.

---

Sorry, we're too busy getting psychosis from pot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Why do you refuse to answer these simple questions that I ask?

What is the reason you keep dodging giving a simple straight answer?

---

WB hates giving direct answers when he knows he his answer(s) will reflect poorly on his intelligence.

That and such responses will be quoted for perpetuity, as some of Back's are, and TheE's regarding talking down an intruder in his home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Translation: I don't understand big words like "widespread" and I'm still asking an adult to help me answer that question...

---

AKA, you're obsessing about semantics like usual to try to avoid flawed hypotheticals. "I didn't really mean it like that because I said widespread! Waaah!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

WB hates giving direct answers when he knows he his answer(s) will reflect poorly on his intelligence.

That and such responses will be quoted for perpetuity, as some of Back's are, and TheE's regarding talking down an intruder in his home.

---

When rhetorical questions are asked you ask rhetorical questions back. Much like when I post you obsess about events that happened years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

AKA, you're obsessing about semantics like usual.

---

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/02/deflect.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/02/deflect.gif

---

http://oralhistoryexhibit.files.word...ere-there2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

http://oralhistoryexhibit.files.word...ere-there2.jpg

---

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/02/deflect.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

When rhetorical questions are asked you ask rhetorical questions back. Much like when I post you obsess about events that happened years ago.

---

Except it wasn't rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious as to what you think banks would do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Except it wasn't rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious as to what you think banks would do.

---

WB don't answer questions. he is practicing to be a politician. You know, where you ask them a yes or no, and they give you a detailed answer about something entirely different.

I.E. "Do you agree with droning our citizens" .. "Well, you see... Bush shouldn't have tortured people, I don't think torturing people is good for America, it sets a bad example."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

WB don't answer questions. he is practicing to be a politician. You know, where you ask them a yes or no, and they give you a detailed answer about something entirely different.

I.E. "Do you agree with droning our citizens" .. "Well, you see... Bush shouldn't have tortured people, I don't think torturing people is good for America, it sets a bad example."

---

:lol:

>Do you think that banks would make even more bad loans if they knew the government would bail them out?

Absolutely yes.

>Do you think banks would make less bad loans if they knew the government wouldn't bail them out?

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

>Do you think that banks would make even more bad loans if they knew the government would bail them out?

Absolutely yes.

>Do you think banks would make less bad loans if they knew the government wouldn't bail them out?

Yes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

If you say things enough times you can even convince yourself they're true.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

You're just wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

We've had this discussion before and you were simplistically wrong before. Short term share price boosting and individual bonus boosting produce all sorts of incentives to make loans that will never be repaid. Add all the financial instruments used to profit off those loans to the table and banks can go wild. Pretend that deregulation will somehow make it better? It gets even worse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Ever studied America before the Federal Reserve system?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Your "points" are laughable and remain so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Except it wasn't rhetorical. I'm genuinely curious as to what you think banks would do.

---

I believe you. Really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

I believe you. Really.

---

Everyone is out to get you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

Everyone is out to get you.

---

A bunch of Republicans on a politics forum are totally there for legitimate discourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

A bunch of Republicans on a politics forum are totally there for legitimate discourse.

---

http://www.rantchic.com/wp-content/u...MSN-Copy-2.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

http://www.rantchic.com/wp-content/u...MSN-Copy-2.jpg

---

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/...h-limbaugh.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/...h-limbaugh.jpg

---

http://images.starpulse.com/pictures...PRN-008202.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

A bunch of Republicans on a politics forum are totally there for legitimate discourse.

---

So why do you post then? To hear yourself type?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

So why do you post then? To hear yourself type?

---

That's why I post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

So why do you post then? To hear yourself type?

---

https://i0.wp.com/www.nfkb0.com/wp-c..._Internet1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

So why do you post then? To hear yourself type?

---

Because it's fun. Because you aren't the entire forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

So why do you post then? To hear yourself type?

---

WB doesn't mean to come across like that.. he just gets frustrated and upset when people call him out for being wrong and predictable. Why should he have to provide quotes for the things he claims and answer questions!? They might be traps!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

WB doesn't mean to come across like that.. he just gets frustrated and upset when people call him out for being wrong and predictable. Why should he have to provide quotes for the things he claims and answer questions!? They might be traps!

---

More like crutches. Yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

More like crutches. Yours.

---

Asking simple, small worded questions to "special" people like you is a crutch?

Not everything is a trap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

More like crutches. Yours.

---

So your non-existant answers are his crutches? Put down the bowl, you have had enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Asking simple, small worded questions to "special" people like you is a crutch?

Not everything is a trap.

---

You ask "questions" (which aren't) to troll. I ignore it. You think you have a moral victory. Then I point out how ridiculous you are more. It's fun for me. It's sustained us for quite a few years.

Proper Socratic discussion involves them going both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

You ask "questions" (which aren't) to troll. I ignore it. You think you have a moral victory. Then I point out how ridiculous you are more. It's fun for me. It's sustained us for quite a few years.

Proper Socratic discussion involves them going both ways.

---

Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I don't. However I have noticed a tendency of yours to refuse to clarify your position, even when your position needs clarifying.

Sure, a lot of people will try to lead you down the garden path with irrelevancies. But other times, people are genuinely interested in your opinion on somewhat similar issues. It's often enlightening to learn exactly where people draw the line on their opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

Everyone is out to get you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

A bunch of Republicans on a politics forum are totally there for legitimate discourse.

---

http://oi62.tinypic.com/alog9z.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

http://oi62.tinypic.com/alog9z.jpg

---

http://www.historyextra.com/sites/de...Hate_final.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

You ask "questions" (which aren't) to troll. I ignore it. You think you have a moral victory.

---

It was your position that I attempted to clarify with a clear answer. I don't blame you for not wanting to be clear and concise.. you seem to be more comfortable in that gray area.

Quote:

---

Then I point out how ridiculous you are more. It's fun for me. It's sustained us for quite a few years. Proper Socratic discussion involves them going both ways.

---

That's the thing though.. you didn't. The only thing you illustrated was how inept you are at a conversation... creating hyperbolic arguments for other people, random deflections out of nowhere, make claims that you can't/won't back up and ignoring questions that you are uncomfortable answering because you will have to clarify your position.

I'm sure Packlash appreciates your help in making him look less dumb though. It's a rare thing when he's not the dumbest poster in a thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

It was your position that I attempted to clarify with a clear answer. I don't blame you for not wanting to be clear and concise.. you seem to be more comfortable in that gray area.



That's the thing though.. you didn't. The only thing you illustrated was how inept you are at a conversation... creating hyperbolic arguments for other people, random deflections out of nowhere, make claims that you can't/won't back up and ignoring questions that you are uncomfortable answering because you will have to clarify your position.

I'm sure Packlash appreciates your help in making him look less dumb though. It's a rare thing when he's not the dumbest poster in a thread.

---

About all you have is insults and "questions." There's no clarification sought. You just attempt to read things into what other people say. Then you cry really hard if anybody else does. Much like you're doing now.

"Stop doing this thing I want to do!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

About all you have is insults and "questions." There's no clarification sought. You just attempt to read things into what other people say. Then you cry really hard if anybody else does. Much like you're doing now.

"Stop doing this thing I want to do!"

---

If I'm attempting to read into what other people say... wouldn't a simple question help clarify your point?

It's like you purposely are trying to not make sense. Even you can't be this dumb... can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

If I'm attempting to read into what other people say... wouldn't a simple question help clarify your point?

It's like you purposely are trying to not make sense. Even you can't be this dumb... can you?

---

That moment when you're pretending not to be aware of when you're trolling and you continue to throw on insults. You're really seeming impartial and innocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

That moment when you're pretending not to be aware of when you're trolling and you continue to throw on insults. You're really seeming impartial and innocent.

---

You're coming off as trolling as well since you couldn't/wouldn't answer a simple question pertaining to the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

You're coming off as trolling as well since you couldn't/wouldn't answer a simple question pertaining to the discussion.

---

There's no point when it's clear the "answers" don't matter to someone. That's punctuated by his steady stream of insults. Other times it gets made clear that people don't have an actual clue and don't intend to have an actual clue about someone's POV. There's no point in answering that either.

Also "questions" that ignore other considerations are pointless to answer. They suggest complex situations are black and white when they often are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

A bunch of Liberals and conservatives on a politics forum are totally there for legitimate discourse.

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

Fixed.

---

I was referring to the particular set of folks who were responding to me. Of course most everybody on either side is there to troll.

On somewhat original topic:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/07/...ky-high-rates/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0TV5W620141212

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

I was referring to the particular set of folks who were responding to me. Of course most everybody on either side is there to troll.

On somewhat original topic:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/07/...ky-high-rates/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0TV5W620141212

---

So you are saying that Yes to both of the question's PB asked you.

Also.. the first article is kinda funny.. because it's the car dealer that is the shady fucking ass that is abusing the system. ALSO.. the stupid fucktard buyer who took it.

I mean seriously.. if the guy was out of work.. and lives on SS alone.. how the fuck did he think he was going to pay back a 16k loan? He didn't. He knew he wasn't. He is trying to sound like a victim, he isn't a victim, he is a criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

So you are saying that Yes to both of the question's PB asked you.

Also.. the first article is kinda funny.. because it's the car dealer that is the shady fucking ass that is abusing the system. ALSO.. the stupid fucktard buyer who took it.

I mean seriously.. if the guy was out of work.. and lives on SS alone.. how the fuck did he think he was going to pay back a 16k loan? He didn't. He knew he wasn't. He is trying to sound like a victim, he isn't a victim, he is a criminal.

---

No, I'm illustrating my point because you just declared "answers" for me.

The buyer's obviously pretty damn dumb. It's an illustration of unbacked subprime idiocy though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

No, I'm illustrating my point because you just declared "answers" for me.

The buyer's obviously pretty damn dumb. It's an illustration of unbacked subprime idiocy though.

---

Well, YOU said they were rhetorical questions, which means the answer to both of them is yes, you just refuse to say it because it wouldn't fit your narrative.

As for the subprime idiocy... there has always been subprime idiocy, but NOW the banks know that if shit hits the fans, they don't have to pay for it, the Government (aka WE the PEOPLE) do.

The first article is an example of a shady dealer, and an asshole buyer.

The second is an example of the government doing it's job. Which they are supposed to. It doesn't draw any conclusions, or make any statements. It doesn't say the banks have done anything wrong. It's really a nothing piece.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/...blown-for-now/

A counter point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

Well, YOU said they were rhetorical questions, which means the answer to both of them is yes, you just refuse to say it because it wouldn't fit your narrative.

As for the subprime idiocy... there has always been subprime idiocy, but NOW the banks know that if shit hits the fans, they don't have to pay for it, the Government (aka WE the PEOPLE) do.

The first article is an example of a shady dealer, and an asshole buyer.

The second is an example of the government doing it's job. Which they are supposed to. It doesn't draw any conclusions, or make any statements. It doesn't say the banks have done anything wrong. It's really a nothing piece.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/...blown-for-now/

A counter point.

---

Rhetorical questions can also mean questions with that are meant to make a point rather than to draw a real answer. They can be message questions. If one doesn't agree, there's not much point in "answering."

And yeah, I've seen that blog post before. One of the central points is that the New York Fed doesn't think it's a big deal, but the reason I posted the other article is that New York is investigating questionable subprime lending practices in the auto industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Rhetorical questions can also mean questions with that are meant to make a point rather than to draw a real answer. They can be message questions. If one doesn't agree, there's not much point in "answering."

And yeah, I've seen that blog post before. One of the central points is that the New York Fed doesn't think it's a big deal, but the reason I posted the other article is that New York is investigating questionable subprime lending practices in the auto industry.

---

.....

The Department of Justice is also still investigating Wilson for Racial crimes. Soo... yeah, unless they FIND something, investigations are meaningless. I would say more then 50% of the time they are either political pressure, or government pressure. Basically.. the gov saying.. look.. we can screw you over if we want, so play nice kiddies.

So you DON'T agree with the Yes answers to those questions? You think they are No answers? Seriously.. this is why people think your an ass for not answering. IF you really believe the answers are no, say so and explain. If you say yes, then admit it and explain why it doesn't matter. Trying to pretend your using Socratic method is just foolish. Because.. guess what, they can then not answer you and ask another question.

Anyway.. Subprime car is almost meaningless at this point. Not to mention.. 50% or more of the problem is the dealers. Not the banks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

.....

The Department of Justice is also still investigating Wilson for Racial crimes. Soo... yeah, unless they FIND something, investigations are meaningless. I would say more then 50% of the time they are either political pressure, or government pressure. Basically.. the gov saying.. look.. we can screw you over if we want, so play nice kiddies.

So you DON'T agree with the Yes answers to those questions? You think they are No answers? Seriously.. this is why people think your an ass for not answering. IF you really believe the answers are no, say so and explain. If you say yes, then admit it and explain why it doesn't matter. Trying to pretend your using Socratic method is just foolish. Because.. guess what, they can then not answer you and ask another question.

Anyway.. Subprime car is almost meaningless at this point. Not to mention.. 50% or more of the problem is the dealers. Not the banks.

---

Nah, they're mostly instances of people having a particularly simplistic view of an issue. Answering is giving that view credence. Life isn't merely "Yes" or "No." answers.

We'll see what the investigation finds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

About all you have is insults

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

you continue to throw on insults

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

That's punctuated by his steady stream of insults.

---

THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT. WE HAVE REACHED WB MEME ALERT LEVEL SEVERE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Nah, they're mostly instances of people having a particularly simplistic view of an issue. Answering is giving that view credence. Life isn't merely "Yes" or "No." answers.

We'll see what the investigation finds.

---

Yeah.. you are reaching asinine politician level of response now. You know.. where they can't answer a question for fear of it somehow hurting them in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Nah, they're mostly instances of people having a particularly simplistic view of an issue. Answering is giving that view credence. Life isn't merely "Yes" or "No." answers.

---

WB = "my position is as the wind blows"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

WB = "my position is as the wind blows"

---

I prefer dealing with people who have the mental acuity to examine both sides of an issue and allow themselves to be swayed through reasoning. I know I learn something new every day that causes me to re-think the way that I see things. There are subtleties that are missed when you cling to the same positions that your daddy taught you when you were ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap

I prefer dealing with people who have the mental acuity to examine both sides of an issue and allow themselves to be swayed through reasoning. I know I learn something new every day that causes me to re-think the way that I see things. There are subtleties that are missed when you cling to the same positions that your daddy taught you when you were ten.

---

I don't believe that is what Atlanteax is saying. WB will say something, then when asked to clarify, he pretends you are trolling him/setting a trap/don't know how to have a conversation/attacking him/etc... Then, when the dust settles, he will come back and say something like "Yea, that's exactly what I was saying".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I don't believe that is what Atlanteax is saying. WB will say something, then when asked to clarify, he pretends you are trolling him/setting a trap/don't know how to have a conversation/attacking him/etc... Then, when the dust settles, he will come back and say something like "Yea, that's exactly what I was saying".

---

Maybe he meant to say that...

But yeah, there are a lot of people who will go to any lengths to avoid admitting they were wrong, or even that they might have a little common ground. I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I don't believe that is what Atlanteax is saying. WB will say something, then when asked to clarify, he pretends you are trolling him/setting a trap/don't know how to have a conversation/attacking him/etc... Then, when the dust settles, he will come back and say something like "Yea, that's exactly what I was saying".

---

Lol this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap

Maybe he meant to say that...

But yeah, there are a lot of people who will go to any lengths to avoid admitting they were wrong, or even that they might have a little common ground. I don't get it.

---

The funny part is: I believe Warriorbird and I have far more in common than not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

The funny part is: I believe Warriorbird and I have far more in common than not.

---

The same applies for WB & myself, such as our love for mocking black culture (refer to video WB posted)

I think he might be afraid to discover how much he has in common with most of us. After all, if you have things in common with your avowed enemy, then you can't hate them as easily. And no, I don't hate WB that would take far too much work, I might feel sorry for him because all he has are personal attacks, distractions and so on and because he is so threatened in his beliefs that he had to resort to scraping/breaking the law to hurt others rather than actually defend his own positions in a rational manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

I think he might be afraid to discover how much he has in common with most of us. After all, if you have things in common with your avowed enemy, then you can't hate them as easily. And no, I don't hate WB that would take far too much work, I might feel sorry for him because all he has are personal attacks, distractions and so on and because he is so threatened in his beliefs that he had to resort to scraping/breaking the law to hurt others rather than actually defend his own positions in a rational manner.

---

How is he breaking the law?

And how exactly do you scrape a law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

How is he breaking the law?

---

Warriorbird spelled backwards is Bill Cosby. Coincidence? I think not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Warriorbird spelled backwards is Bill Cosby. Coincidence? I think not.

---

Oh snap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

Oh snap!

---

Did you just have a Chrome error?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Did you just have a Chrome error?

---

I think he just loves mocking black culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

I think he just loves mocking black culture.

---

Stop breaking the law, Latrin.

( I don't know, it makes as much sense as squiggles' accusation about warriorbird.)

The real question is whether he scraped it before or after he breaked it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

The real question is whether he scraped it before or after he breaked it.

---

He braped it.

“We shouldn’t be second-guessing and beating up on the CIA, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all the other men and women who’ve helped to keep us safe for the last 14 years. We should be thanking them.” -Michael Reagan, son of Ronny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

“We shouldn’t be second-guessing and beating up on the CIA, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all the other men and women who’ve helped to keep us safe for the last 14 years. We should be thanking them.” -Michael Reagan, son of Ronny.

---

Is the 'dumb part' the reference to the last 14 years? I do not recall a 2nd 9/11 happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

Is the 'dumb part' the reference to the last 14 years? I do not recall a 2nd 9/11 happening.

---

I don't have the time right now to peel back the layers of this stupid onion, so I'll let the resident liberals field this one.

Edit: I'm referring to the quote, not you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

I don't have the time right now to peel back the layers of this stupid onion, so I'll let the resident liberals field this one.

Edit: I'm referring to the quote, not you.

---

Liberals. Good for absolutely nothing, even when you've set it up for them. Not second guessing our leaders in retrospect is dumb. Not beating them up if they deserve it is dumb. Thanking them for torturing people is dumb. He appears ignorant of the fact that his dad (the only reason people know who he is) was strongly opposed to torture, which appears dumb. Equating torture to keeping us safe is dumb. Condoning torture is dumb. The torturing regime went out 6 years ago, so the idea they've been actively keeping us safe for 14 years is dumb. We'll start with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Liberals. Good for absolutely nothing, even when you've set it up for them. Not second guessing our leaders in retrospect is dumb. Not beating them up if they deserve it is dumb. Thanking them for torturing people is dumb. He appears ignorant of the fact that his dad (the only reason people know who he is) was strongly opposed to torture, which appears dumb. Equating torture to keeping us safe is dumb. Condoning torture is dumb. The torturing regime went out 6 years ago, so the idea they've been actively keeping us safe for 14 years is dumb. We'll start with that.

---

Obama tortures us every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Obama tortures us every day.

---

He waterboarded me personally yesterday.

It sounded like to me that Michael Reagan was referring to *excessive* 'second-guessing' Bush/Cheney/etc, beyond what would be considered a 'healthy dosage of criticism'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

It sounded like to me that Michael Reagan was referring to *excessive* 'second-guessing' Bush/Cheney/etc, beyond what would be considered a 'healthy dosage of criticism'.

---

Saying torture is no bueno isn't "excessive" criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

Saying torture is no bueno isn't "excessive" criticism.

---

How do you know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

Saying torture is no bueno isn't "excessive" criticism.

---

That is one thing, then it is another to be screaming 'crimes against humanity' at the top of your lungs and wanting jail time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

That is one thing, then it is another to be screaming 'crimes against humanity' at the top of your lungs and wanting jail time.

---

So it's ok to say that torture is wrong but not to say that people should be punished for doing something wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenlaar

So it's ok to say that torture is wrong but not to say that people should be punished for doing something wrong?

---

I think lying is wrong but I don't think someone should be locked up for telling his girlfriend he used to be lead singer in Kiss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I think lying is wrong but I don't think someone should be locked up for telling his girlfriend he used to be lead singer in Kiss.

---

She should be locked up for believing it, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

I think lying is wrong but I don't think someone should be locked up for telling his girlfriend he used to be lead singer in Kiss.

---

And that might mean something if torture and lying were in any way comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenlaar

And that might mean something if torture and lying were in any way comparable.

---

If they didn't lie about not knowing anything, we wouldn't have to torture them to get them to tell the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenlaar

And that might mean something if torture and lying were in any way comparable.

---

They aren't comparable. You said someone should be punished for doing something wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenlaar

And that might mean something if torture and lying were in any way comparable.

---

What about murdering innocent people? How does that rank for you? Above torture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

They aren't comparable. You said someone should be punished for doing something wrong.

---

Torture is against the law in all cases. Lying is not against the law in all cases. No more diversion, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

What about murdering innocent people? How does that rank for you? Above torture?

---

I agree. We need to stop doing that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

If they didn't lie about not knowing anything, we wouldn't have to torture them to get them to tell the truth.

---

Pretty sure you were just trolling, which is cool but not something I'd ever engage in, but...

Uncooperative people are a poor source of intelligence as a result. The amount of time, money and manpower required to corroborate every statement made under the duress of torture -the majority of which are lies given to end said torture- is, as we say in the business, "retarded". I'm not exaggerating when I say that any other method of intelligence gathering is more productive, more reliable and more efficient. It was unnecessary, it was wrong, and if you or I did it, we'd be in jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Pretty sure you were just trolling, which is cool but not something I'd ever engage in, but...

---

ROFL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Pretty sure you were just trolling, which is cool but not something I'd ever engage in, but...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeril

ROFL.

---

this 'times infinity'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

What about murdering innocent people? How does that rank for you? Above torture?

---

Yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Pretty sure you were just trolling, which is cool but not something I'd ever engage in, but...

Uncooperative people are a poor source of intelligence as a result. The amount of time, money and manpower required to corroborate every statement made under the duress of torture -the majority of which are lies given to end said torture- is, as we say in the business, "retarded". I'm not exaggerating when I say that any other method of intelligence gathering is more productive, more reliable and more efficient. It was unnecessary, it was wrong, and if you or I did it, we'd be in jail.

---

Wrathbringer wants to use the magic 8 ball means of intelligence gathering. According to him it must be better after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenlaar

Yes?

---

Then I guess we need to prosecute every single administration and most of the high level flunkies in every admin, since the dawn of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

Then I guess we need to prosecute every single administration and most of the high level flunkies in every admin, since the dawn of time.

---

George Washington did not personally murder innocents with his bare hands. That's what militia are for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

Then I guess we need to prosecute every single administration and most of the high level flunkies in every admin, since the dawn of time.

---

Better late than never.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

Wrathbringer wants to use the magic 8 ball means of intelligence gathering. According to him it must be better after all.

---

Wrathbringer is in favor of techniques that actually work. You seem to believe torture is the Only one that works, when in fact it does not. It would be simpler and more honest for you to say that you just like the notion of hurting people out of vengeance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

Wrathbringer is in favor of techniques that actually work. You seem to believe torture is the Only one that works, when in fact it does not. It would be simpler and more honest for you to say that you just like the notion of hurting people out of vengeance.

---

Interesting.. interesting.

Mind pointing out where I said Torture is the ONLY thing that works?

I have said that what you people call torture has worked in the past. I never said it is the only thing that works. In fact.. wait.. let me think... yeah. I specifically said it was a LAST RESORT.

Now.. I KNOW you are not a fucking imbecile. But wouldn't it be simpler and more honest of you to just admit you are an asshole who likes to attack people on here and make things up rather then what people say?

“During my years here when I voted, I had the eighth most conservative voting record in the Congress,” Boehner said Thursday, rebutting the conservative criticism. “And it does pain me to be described as spineless or a squish.”
“And I tell you what pains me the most is when they describe me as the establishment,” Boehner continued. “Now, I’m the most anti-establishment speaker we’ve ever had.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

“During my years here when I voted, I had the eighth most conservative voting record in the Congress,” Boehner said Thursday, rebutting the conservative criticism. “And it does pain me to be described as spineless or a squish.”
“And I tell you what pains me the most is when they describe me as the establishment,” Boehner continued. “Now, I’m the most anti-establishment speaker we’ve ever had.”

---

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/..._908223010.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

“During my years here when I voted, I had the eighth most conservative voting record in the Congress,” Boehner said Thursday, rebutting the conservative criticism. “And it does pain me to be described as spineless or a squish.”
“And I tell you what pains me the most is when they describe me as the establishment,” Boehner continued. “Now, I’m the most anti-establishment speaker we’ve ever had.”

---

I don't think it means what he think it means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

I don't think it means what he think it means.

---

25 years in Congress = establishment

He's so entrenched, he'll have to die to get unseated.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...02-01-12-58-46

Idiotic.

What. A. Twat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Boehner continued. “Now, I’m the most anti-establishment speaker we’ve ever had.”

---

Ah ha ha ha ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...02-01-12-58-46

Idiotic.

---

This is why I have said the Republican party needs to get off the Zealot train and get back to some sense of reality. People want fiscal responsibility, they are tired of having to have it tied to some zealous clap trap. Modern Christian zealots in politics have become a grotesque caricature of religion and the religious involved in politics. More so than the vapid Socialists they oppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~

This is why I have said the Republican party needs to get off the Zealot train and get back to some sense of reality. People want fiscal responsibility, they are tired of having to have it tied to some zealous clap trap. Modern Christian zealots in politics have become a grotesque caricature of religion and the religious involved in politics. More so than the vapid Socialists they oppose.

---

Don't tell that to Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee is that guy who wanted to be cool for his whole life but could never figure out how to stop being a dork.

He's got a movie named after him.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/

Quote:

---

HELENA — A Montana lawmaker is seeking to strengthen the state’s indecent exposure law, stopping just short of his wish to outlaw yoga pants.

Rep. David Moore on Tuesday introduced House Bill 365 in the House Judiciary Committee in response to a group of naked bicyclists who rolled through Missoula in August.

The proposal would expand indecent exposure law to include any nipple exposure, including men’s, and any garment that “gives the appearance or simulates” a person’s buttocks, genitals, pelvic area or female nipple.

The Republican from Missoula said tight-fitting beige clothing could be considered indecent exposure under his proposal.

Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway,” Moore said after the hearing.

---

Harlots, the lot of them!

I hope this guy gets laughed out of office.

Who could possibly deny liking yoga pants? I mean come on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tyrant-201

Who could possibly deny liking yoga pants? I mean come on

---

It very much depends on who is wearing the yoga pants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenlaar

It very much depends on who is wearing the yoga pants.

---

Well, we are talking Montana. Maybe he's got a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Huckabee is that guy who wanted to be cool for his whole life but could never figure out how to stop being a dork.

---

He plays an instrument well. I respect that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

He plays an instrument well. I respect that much.

---

Meat whistle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Meat whistle?

---

He prefers to call it the skin flute.

I can't believe I'm going to put something Michael Bloomberg said into this topic.. but...

At the Institute’s Feb. 5 event, the pro-gun control multi-billionaire suggested keeping guns out of the hands of young, male minorities.


Ninety-five percent of murders are attributed to the group, said Bloomberg, who has spend tens of millions of dollars on various gun control initiatives, including the group Everytown for Gun Safety.


“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” Bloomberg said at the summit. “They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/mi...ing-published/

95% of all murders are done by young male minorities? Where is that actual stat?

Pat Robertson has some words of caution for anyone considering taking up yoga.
Responding to a viewer's question posed during Tuesday's episode of "The 700 Club,” Robertson claimed that the ancient mindfulness practice tricks people into "praying to a Hindu deity." During yoga lessons, he said, participants unknowingly repeat mantras "in Hindu" -- though Robertson did not say whether he has ever personally taken a yoga class.


:lol2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Pat Robertson has some words of caution for anyone considering taking up yoga.
Responding to a viewer's question posed during Tuesday's episode of "The 700 Club,” Robertson claimed that the ancient mindfulness practice tricks people into "praying to a Hindu deity." During yoga lessons, he said, participants unknowingly repeat mantras "in Hindu" -- though Robertson did not say whether he has ever personally taken a yoga class.


:lol2:

---

http://i.imgur.com/c85vqim.gif

That dog is possessed by a devil!

:lol:

Why did you delete that hilarity??

BOISE, Idaho — An Idaho lawmaker received a brief lesson on female anatomy after asking if a woman can swallow a small camera for doctors to conduct a remote gynecological exam.

The question Monday from Republican state Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine.

Barbieri later said that the question was rhetorical and intended to make a point.

Dr. Julie Madsen, a physician who said she has provided various telemedicine services in Idaho, was testifying in opposition to the bill. She said some colonoscopy patients may swallow a small device to give doctors a closer look at parts of their colon.


"Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is?" Barbieri asked.

Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.

"Fascinating. That makes sense," Barbieri said, amid the crowd's laughter.

The committee approved the bill 13-4 on a party-line vote, where it now goes to the House floor for a full vote. Barbieri, who sits on the board of a crisis pregnancy center in northern Idaho, voted in favor of the legislation.

The panel is considered one of the most conservative committees in Idaho's Republican-controlled Statehouse. Already this year, it has killed a proposal that would provide legal protections to gay and lesbian Idahoans and halted legislation proposed by a 14-year-old girl to designate the Idaho Giant Salamander as the official state amphibian. It has endorsed, however, a bill that would expand parental rights in Idaho law.

Under HB154, abortion-inducing medication could not be administered through telemedicine — which does not currently happen in Idaho — and requires doctors to make "all reasonable efforts" to schedule a follow-up visit. The bill is backed by the anti-abortion group Idaho Choose Life.


Anti-abortion advocates argue that the bill will protect women who may have an adverse reaction to abortion medication. Those opposed counter that the bill is an attempt to restrict abortions, pointing to women living in rural areas where access to clinics is already limited.

Monday afternoon Barbieri told The Spokesman-Review that he adamantly supports the bill, and wasn't fazed by the social media attention his question garnered.

"I was being rhetorical, because I was trying to make the point that equalizing a colonoscopy to this particular procedure was apples and oranges," he said. "So I was asking a rhetorical question that was designed to make her say that they weren't the same thing, and she did so. It was the response I wanted."

The measure is one of several abortion-related bills Idaho lawmakers are considering this legislative session.

This includes a proposed bill seeking to define the scope of telemedicine in Idaho, which somewhat overlaps with HB154, because it specifically bans doctors from prescribing abortion drugs via videoconferencing. Over in the Idaho Senate, lawmakers are considering a bill that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

"Children have no way to really challenge the forces that harm them and unborn children are especially susceptible to harm," said Republican Rep. Linden Bateman. "In my view, this may reduce the number of abortions."

This isn't the first time Idaho lawmakers have received attention while debating abortion legislation.

In 2013, Republican Rep. Ron Mendive drew audible gasps in a committee when he asked if the American Civil Liberties Union-Idaho's pro-abortion stance also meant they supported prostitution.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle...293718211.html

To be fair a woman's nether regions can get confusing.

http://www.womenhealthzone.com/wp-co...-on-Vagina.jpg

What goes in where? What comes out of what? So much easier being a man. Am I right, guys?!

That's the most action PK has seen in years, dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

To be fair a woman's nether regions can get confusing.



What goes in where? What comes out of what? So much easier being a man. Am I right, guys?!

---

Even if you knew nothing about the vagina, you might be able to understand what happens when you swallow something.

Or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

That's the most action PK has seen in years, dude.

---

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/p...big-a32960.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/p...big-a32960.jpg

---

Don't get too close PK or he might try to "JackWhisper" you

Inhofe disproves climate change with a snowball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGs867KEPfg

Weather gets cold. Snow falls down.

Can't explain that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

Inhofe disproves climate change with a snowball.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGs867KEPfg

---

Why do we keep electing these clowns? Oh right, because they're backed by multibillion dollar corporations that pay to put their retarded faces on tv 24/7 once they've demonstrated that they can be trusted to represent said corporation's interests above all else. USA! USA! USA!

A scientist's nightmare. Checkmate, science.

Dr. Ben Carson said being gay is "absolutely" a choice, just hours after launching an exploratory committee for 2016. The renowned neurosurgeon-turned-conservative-celebrity said prisons prove this theory, in an interview with CNN that aired on Wednesday morning. "A lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight — and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question,"

http://www.idontwannagrowup.com/wp-c...e-pictures.jpg

And I actually liked him... he's done.

Stick a fork in him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Dr. Ben Carson said being gay is "absolutely" a choice, just hours after launching an exploratory committee for 2016. The renowned neurosurgeon-turned-conservative-celebrity said prisons prove this theory, in an interview with CNN that aired on Wednesday morning. "A lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight — and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question,"

http://www.idontwannagrowup.com/wp-c...e-pictures.jpg

And I actually liked him... he's done.

---

But he's a doctor!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IQ_Cx05J1E

And he's apparently on the internet policy subcommittee.

/facepalm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IQ_Cx05J1E

And he's apparently on the internet policy subcommittee.

/facepalm

---

This is why we make fun of southerners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap

This is why we make fun of southerners.

---

You mean we don't make fun of them because of inbreeding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackWhisper

You mean we don't make fun of them because of inbreeding?

---

Among our reasons are ...
... and a fanatical devotion to the pope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IQ_Cx05J1E

And he's apparently on the internet policy subcommittee.

/facepalm

---

Holy fuck...

I watched the tail end of the interview yesterday and heard the moderator tell Graham to let him know when he's ready to make his Presidential run announcement on his show. I HOPE he's kidding... Graham is an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap

This is why we make fun of southerners.

---

Wow..a Senator who has never sent an email. Mind...blown. And I'm a Conservative.

I hope that if it is revealed that a liberal Congressman has never sent an email that no one changes their opinion on the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Candor

Wow..a Senator who has never sent an email. Mind...blown. And I'm a Conservative.

I hope that if it is revealed that a liberal Congressman has never sent an email that no one changes their opinion on the matter.

---

Attachment 7285

I don't see the issue with not ever having sent an email. I also don't see the issue with using a private server for sending emails.

I'm trying to understand how it's even possible. Does he just have aides print out your emails and then dictate responses? He can't NOT have an email address...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

I also don't see the issue with using a private server for sending emails.

---

Oh come on, really?

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

I don't see the issue with not ever having sent an email. I also don't see the issue with using a private server for sending emails.

---

Well Back, that's just because you want Hillary to have total control over all the emails that could end her political career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IQ_Cx05J1E

And he's apparently on the internet policy subcommittee.

/facepalm

---

Translation: I'm way too smart to document all my shady communications and dealings. Prepaid cell phones only.

What has she got to hide? You act like she is some foreign dictator or a spy for the enemy? I know people don't like her but please. With all the cyber attacks going on it makes sense to me to use a secure and likely unknown server for email. It's about protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

Well Back, that's just because you want Hillary to have total control over all the emails that could end her political career.

---

LOL.. extremely unlikely this will end her political career.

We've grown accustom to them doing it the "Clinton Way".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

What has she got to hide? You act like she is some foreign dictator or a spy for the enemy? I know people don't like her but please. With all the cyber attacks going on it makes sense to me to use a secure and likely unknown server for email. It's about protection.

---

Yeah. Hers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Translation: I'm way too smart to document all my shady communications and dealings. Prepaid cell phones only.

---

Upon advice of my attorney...

/I'll wait for the followup, when someone finds his sexxxyboy69@yahoo.com account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrathbringer

Translation: I'm way too smart to document all my shady communications and dealings. Prepaid cell phones only.

---

Haha. Burners: for drug dealers and politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

What has she got to hide? You act like she is some foreign dictator or a spy for the enemy? I know people don't like her but please. With all the cyber attacks going on it makes sense to me to use a secure and likely unknown server for email. It's about protection.

---

It's about following the policy.

It's about transparency.

It's about ethics.

Replace Hillary Clinton with Dick Cheney and you would be having an absolute conniption fit.

They are far and away from being comparable. But think about this. With all the devices we have to plug into computers it makes our systems that much more vulnerable to attacks. I believe that is how Sony got hacked. Some employee probably plugged a contaminated wireless device into their office computer.

If Cheney did it why are people upset Hilary did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

What has she got to hide? You act like she is some foreign dictator or a spy for the enemy? I know people don't like her but please. With all the cyber attacks going on it makes sense to me to use a secure and likely unknown server for email. It's about protection.

---

Yeah... that's why months of emails are "Missing".

Also.. what does she have to hide? She is Clinton. EVERYTHING. As for cyber attacks.. the ONLY reason we know about this is because her email was hacked.

And I agree.. it's about protections. Protection from Congress, from FOIA requests, from getting in trouble in general.. about her 4 years looking as good as possible in her books...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

They are far and away from being comparable. But think about this. With all the devices we have to plug into computers it makes our systems that much more vulnerable to attacks. I believe that is how Sony got hacked. Some employee probably plugged a contaminated wireless device into their office computer.

If Cheney did it why are people upset Hilary did?

---

Back.. it isn't even Tuesday.. get off the sauce. Cheney didn't do it. But you would be crying for his beheading if he did.

What do you think she is hiding?

It was Rove, in the library, with a candlestick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

What do you think she is hiding?

---

It doesn't matter. These documents are supposed to be kept by the government for transparency purposes. FOIA requests and all that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

It doesn't matter. These documents are supposed to be kept by the government for transparency purposes. FOIA requests and all that...

---

I really haven't read everything about this. Is she not turning these emails over to whoever needs to read them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

I really haven't read everything about this. Is she not turning these emails over to whoever needs to read them?

---

That's the thing. It's all on HER servers. Which means It's up to HER what gets turned over. That's not how it's supposed to work. She was a public, government employee at the time; every last government email is government property and a matter of historical record. Period. I don't know whether she's trying to hide anything or not, and frankly it doesn't matter- the rules are in place to maintain transparency. At the very least it just looks suspicious. Follow the damn rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

I don't see the issue with not ever having sent an email.

---

Even if that person is on the internet subcommittee?

Did Tuesday come early this week?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

I really haven't read everything about this. Is she not turning these emails over to whoever needs to read them?

---

Well.. she has never turned anything over to Benghazi.. nor to a FOIA request. So that answers that.

Look at it this way.. the AP is suing her. For not turning over emails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Even if that person is on the internet subcommittee?

Did Tuesday come early this week?

---

I'm actually at work. Just a little bored. Drunk me and sober me are kinda the same thing. Either way we can both get obnoxious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

I'm trying to understand how it's even possible. Does he just have aides print out your emails and then dictate responses? He can't NOT have an email address...

---

He's probably being literal; he himself has never sent an email, he just tells an aide what he wants to email and they do it.

He's a Senator! He ain't got time for that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

That's the thing. It's all on HER servers. Which means It's up to HER what gets turned over. That's not how it's supposed to work. She was a public, government employee at the time; every last government email is government property and a matter of historical record. Period. I don't know whether she's trying to hide anything or not, and frankly it doesn't matter- the rules are in place to maintain transparency. At the very least it just looks suspicious. Follow the damn rules.

---

Damn... rare agreement from me here.

Then again, this is a pretty black and white issue. I'm surprised there are some people that are not having a problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Damn... rare agreement from me here.

Then again, this is a pretty black and white issue. I'm surprised there are some people that are not having a problem with it.

---

I think a lot of people have a problem with it, but here's the rub...

The people who care about this didn't like her to begin with, so that's a wash.

The people who liked her to begin with won't care about this, so that's a wash.

She didn't break any law, so there isn't any recourse in that direction.

Effectively, its a non-issue.

To follow, I think there are much greater grievances to be brought if she attempts a Presidential run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

I think a lot of people have a problem with it, but here's the rub...

The people who care about this didn't like her to begin with, so that's a wash.

The people who liked her to begin with won't care about this, so that's a wash.

She didn't break any law, so there isn't any recourse in that direction.

Effectively, its a non-issue.

---

Pretty sure waywardgs didn't dislike her to begin with... which is why I was surprised with him in this instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

To follow, I think there are much greater grievances to be brought if she attempts a Presidential run.

---

Absolutely. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, Captain Obvious.

This is just another example of the arrogance of this individual.. believing policies are meant for everyone, but her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Absolutely. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, Captain Obvious.

This is just another example of the arrogance of this individual.. believing policies are meant for everyone, but her.

---

That's the typical mindset of the new Monarchy, aka career politicians. Nothing to see here, move along.