The Gaming Den Forum Index The Gaming Den
Welcome to the Gaming Den.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Google
 Search WWW   Search tgdmb.com 
U.S. News That Makes You Laugh/Cry/Both/Neither...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 505, 506, 507 ... 512, 513, 514  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> MPSIMS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Zaranthan
Knight


Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 358

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Oh, I don't think Libertariansim could work right now, nor do I agree that making the government hierarchy into a pyramid is a good idea. I just see that it comes from LOGIC, and I'm okay with people having different ideas than I do so long as their ideas are thought-out. The fact that the people who want a small fed voted for a gorram FASCIST is what doesn't make sense. But then again, I know several women who watched Trump dismiss a woman's opinion on the grounds that she was on the rag, and then voted for him to represent their interests, so maybe nothing makes sense anymore.

EDIT: Also, I thought the part where I called them Confederates covered the fact that they're racists. Smile
_________________
Koumei wrote:
...is the dead guy posthumously at fault for his own death and, due to the felony murder law, his own murderer?

hyzmarca wrote:
A palace made out of poop is much more impressive than one made out of gold. Stinkier, but more impressive. One is an ostentatious display of wealth. The other is a miraculous engineering feat.


Last edited by Zaranthan on Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12084

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Zaranthan wrote:
An increasingly visible faction of the GOP's voter base isn't there for the small government "towns over counties over states over fed" model that actually makes sense, they're just Confederates who think they can go back to lynching people if they elect the right assholes.


......

No, the libertarian dumbshittery isn't good, that's the point. If they advocated one racist kill black people method instead of the other also racist kill black people method, they would still be racists advocating killing black people.

Don't be said they aren't the kind of racist kill black people that you pretend is good.
_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
SlyJohnny
Knight-Baron


Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Posts: 953

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Oh hey, look, it only took Kaelik 13 posts to start strawmanning Clinton critics as rabid mysogynists from when Clinton arose as a topic. Did you consider bringing it up immediately and consciously decide to wait before you checkmated everyone with that clever nuclear option?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12084

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

SlyJohnny wrote:
Oh hey, look, it only took Kaelik 13 posts to start strawmanning Clinton critics as rabid mysogynists from when Clinton arose as a topic. Did you consider bringing it up immediately and consciously decide to wait before you checkmated everyone with that clever nuclear option?


The point that people have different subconscious judgments on men and women should come as absolutely no surprise to literally anyone, and the point that previous failed presidential candidates are allowed to do things like be secretary of state or US senator, and that other candidates who lose elections are almost never to never told to "fuck off and die, go away, never ever talk about politics again" is probably a good reason for people to reevaluate why this specific candidate is the only one ever subject to that standard.
_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
RobbyPants
Prince


Joined: 06 Aug 2008
Posts: 4470

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Zaranthan wrote:

EDIT: Also, I thought the part where I called them Confederates covered the fact that they're racists. Smile
I knew what you meant. I was responding to Kaelik, and quoted you to show that you'd already answered for me. The bit after that was just me elaborating.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rasmuswagner
Knight-Baron


Joined: 16 May 2011
Posts: 618
Location: Danmark

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Zaranthan wrote:
An increasingly visible faction of the GOP's voter base isn't there for the small government "towns over counties over states over fed" model that actually makes sense, they're just Confederates who think they can go back to lynching people if they elect the right assholes.


"towns over counties over states over fed" is a scenario that benefits racist assholes. Come on, you already know this.
_________________
Every time you play in a "low magic world" with D&D rules (or derivates), a unicorn steps on a kitten and an orphan drops his ice cream cone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3442
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Kaelik wrote:
SlyJohnny wrote:
Oh hey, look, it only took Kaelik 13 posts to start strawmanning Clinton critics as rabid mysogynists from when Clinton arose as a topic. Did you consider bringing it up immediately and consciously decide to wait before you checkmated everyone with that clever nuclear option?


The point that people have different subconscious judgments on men and women should come as absolutely no surprise to literally anyone, and the point that previous failed presidential candidates are allowed to do things like be secretary of state or US senator, and that other candidates who lose elections are almost never to never told to "fuck off and die, go away, never ever talk about politics again" is probably a good reason for people to reevaluate why this specific candidate is the only one ever subject to that standard.
Trying to impugn "my subconscious thoughts" seems an awful lot like you projecting onto me kaelik. Perhaps the fact that Clinton is the only candidate that has, in the time I've been able to vote, come in at a time where Left wing infighting has been at its worse is more motivation for me to say "Hey wish she would fucking wait until after the elections to piss off the voters we need" than "damn her vagina!". Doesn't it piss you off when people try to 'guess' at your psychology based off of shit you didn't type?
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12084

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

MGuy wrote:
Trying to impugn "my subconscious thoughts" seems an awful lot like you projecting onto me kaelik. Perhaps the fact that Clinton is the only candidate that has, in the time I've been able to vote, come in at a time where Left wing infighting has been at its worse is more motivation for me to say "Hey wish she would fucking wait until after the elections to piss off the voters we need" than "damn her vagina!". Doesn't it piss you off when people try to 'guess' at your psychology based off of shit you didn't type?


"WAAAAAAAHHHHHH I'm not sexist! I'm also not racist! Our society doesn't treat women differently than men! I'm so extra special above the subconscious effects of sexism that pervade our entire society that I can always be absolutely certain that they never effect me. I'M NOT PRIVILEGED! STOP SAYING PRIVILEGE THAT'S NOT A THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Sure thing Mguy, you are absolutely the least sexist person in the entire universe, and the fact that you have repeatedly called for her to fuck off and never ever talk about politics again, even though that has never been the standard for anyone, was totally based 100% on your totally informed (not at all informed, completely uninformed as you have demonstrated time and time again) purely content based criticism of Clinton for exasperating (well, not actually exasperating, and you have no evidence that she did, but why no just blame her for correlation without investigating if there are other factors at play) tensions between the leftists and liberals. And you definitely aren't telling her to go away forever, merely to wait until after the election that is one year and 3 months away. Or maybe the one after that which is 3 years and 3 months away. And hey, as long as there isn't an important national election of the entire House of the United States Congress any time in the next 3 years, she can talk in public again THEN! YOU ARE SO GENEROUS.
_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Last edited by Kaelik on Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3442
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

So in response to me not bringing up gender at all your take away is that I 'must' be sexist. So when I point out that's you trying to guess at my psychology based off of nothing while ignoring what I actually said you launch into a screed to tie my thoughts and motivations to society (because everyone knows that everyone in a society are all the same subconsciously regardless of their individual experiences or environments) for clearly no reason other than to assure yourself of this little theory.

I mean perhaps your deep seated subconscious racism is why you are testing me right now. What with this terrible society we live in you clearly hate minorities so I can't trust that you're above that even though nothing you said mentioned, hinted at, or implied that you were. Bt whatever.

Yes. She is the face of the establishment right now or at least she was in the race and whenever she comes up. If you have evidence that this is not the case and that the talk among progressives right now or even during the race doesn't and didn't cast her as such feel free to post away proving mev wrong. And yes. I'd prefer she fall off the face of the map unless what she says is going to mend that division. If she's not going to help I'd rather her stay quiet for a year and change. That is exactly what I'm saying. I'm glad you can look past all that racism in your heart to mockingly repeat my point with no counter argument.
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 27140

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

MGuy wrote:
So in response to me not bringing up gender at all your take away is that I 'must' be sexist.


No. The point is that getting upset that Hillary Clinton is speaking in public does not make any sense on any level unless there is assumed sexism at work. All former presidential candidates speak in public. It's a thing they do. For there to be any outrage, or even discussion on this point for her specifically, you need a framework where there's something specific about her that means she should be held to a different standard than John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Al Gore, or Bob Dole. Other than a vagina, what possible difference is there that would cause her to be held to a different standard than those men?

And if you passively accept that people holding her to a different standard is in any way a problem with her, and not with them, then you are part of the problem. Period.

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3442
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

FrankTrollman wrote:
MGuy wrote:
So in response to me not bringing up gender at all your take away is that I 'must' be sexist.


No. The point is that getting upset that Hillary Clinton is speaking in public does not make any sense on any level unless there is assumed sexism at work. All former presidential candidates speak in public. It's a thing they do. For there to be any outrage, or even discussion on this point for her specifically, you need a framework where there's something specific about her that means she should be held to a different standard than John Kerry, Mitt Romney, Al Gore, or Bob Dole. Other than a vagina, what possible difference is there that would cause her to be held to a different standard than those men?

And if you passively accept that people holding her to a different standard is in any way a problem with her, and not with them, then you are part of the problem. Period.

-Frank
If I'd complained that she spoke in public at all you would have a point. Thing is she's been speaking in public for a while since the election and I didn't raise a fuss until now. If only I'd aired what specific reasons... Oh wait. I did. But no. Must be sexism. Couldn't be that I perhaps don't agree with people I referred to unilaterally as idiots because it is only possible to be upset with one thing at a time. It certainly couldn't be that in the wake of an election that flopped because of the party not being together that I view any event that deepens the divide as a threat to my personal future. It MUST be sexism and only that.

Thing is that being right, both morally and logically, didn't win the last election. I am hyper aware now of how trying to be self righteous is not necessarily enough to win and regardless of how mad I might be at any particular person or group that didn't help any idiot at this point should see that you need to engage them or they can AND WILL cut their nose to spite their face and turning even just a few would be allies into enemies because you value being right over being relatable costs votes. I do not particularly care if people hate her because of her vagina on some deep insular level that I cannot perceive but only guess at. No one is calling out her for having a vagina. She can even go crying about how the media isn't doing their job right but no matter how true that is no one who stayed home cares and even if she wants to personally hold the media accountable I don't give a shit. Not because I think she's wrong but because I realize that THIS is the ballgame. If she couldn't adapt boo boo that sucks for everyone but that isn't a message the idiots we need pulling for the party are motherfucking interested in. She's deeply unliked and I really don't care why. I know what she represents to lower class progressive people like me and I can see how easy it is to turn her other criticisms into criticisms against them.

If people like you AND Hillary would rather use the vagina card as an easy pass for complaints people lob at her because you clearly know other people you have never met better than themselves all you do is create more resentment. I'd rather be called an idiot and shown with any decent evidence that what she did will do anything other than solidify the inner party split. But no all you have is some bullshit "it is the vagina the whole time!" excuse. I'm sure you're as correct about that little nugget as you were in the belief that the people would unite behind her in the face of Trump.
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!


Last edited by MGuy on Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:50 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Chamomile
Prince


Joined: 03 May 2011
Posts: 3887

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

rasmuswagner wrote:
Zaranthan wrote:
An increasingly visible faction of the GOP's voter base isn't there for the small government "towns over counties over states over fed" model that actually makes sense, they're just Confederates who think they can go back to lynching people if they elect the right assholes.


"towns over counties over states over fed" is a scenario that benefits racist assholes. Come on, you already know this.


Sure, but you can't be sure from that alone whether or not Libertarians are refusing to acknowledge the racist side effects of the policies they support or if they chose to support those policies specifically because of the racism. You could reasonably call the former kind of Libertarian racist in that they're willing to throw another race under the bus for the sake of (what they believe will be) their own benefit, but they're clearly less racist than the Klan-grade racism of the second. It's perfectly reasonable to see the evidence rolling in and be sad that large numbers of Republican voters aren't easily fooled, they're just evil.
_________________
I have a blog
Also a Discord channel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12084

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I think the funniest part about Mguy denying that his particularize hatred of Hillary Clinton as a former presidential candidate has nothing to do with sexism is how incredibly often he uses sexist language to describe how his hatred isn't sexist.

Bonus points for saying he'd love to see any non sexist based argument for why he's wrong, even though he was shown that he is completely wrong without any sexism being mentioned a page ago, and even admitted it.
_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Last edited by Kaelik on Sat Sep 16, 2017 1:36 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
FrankTrollman
Serious Badass


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 27140

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

People who shake their fists at Hillary for not getting the most votes should probably consider the fact that she did indeed get the most votes.

Literally the only non-sexist reason to complain about her talking about how unfairly she was treated is that actually factually she was unfairly treated and is the rightful president of the United States. If she wanted to declare a general uprising and take the White House by force, she would be in her rights to do so and a majority of the country would support her. If you're really concerned over the possibililty that Hillary might actually lead an insurrection against the blatantly unjust establishment that kept her out of power... then it would be totally understandable for you to want her to not write a book or talk about the campaign or the role of public institutions in the election. Literally the only other reason is that you don't think girls should be allowed to talk.

So which is it? Are you a pro-establishment counter-revolutionary, or a sexist pig?

-Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3442
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

FrankTrollman wrote:
People who shake their fists at Hillary for not getting the most votes should probably consider the fact that she did indeed get the most votes.

Literally the only non-sexist reason to complain about her talking about how unfairly she was treated is that actually factually she was unfairly treated and is the rightful president of the United States. If she wanted to declare a general uprising and take the White House by force, she would be in her rights to do so and a majority of the country would support her. If you're really concerned over the possibililty that Hillary might actually lead an insurrection against the blatantly unjust establishment that kept her out of power... then it would be totally understandable for you to want her to not write a book or talk about the campaign or the role of public institutions in the election. Literally the only other reason is that you don't think girls should be allowed to talk.

So which is it? Are you a pro-establishment counter-revolutionary, or a sexist pig?

-Frank
Literally my reasons are given and considering that you're trying to build a non case with kaelik, 'Oh look you used vagina while talking so that makes you a sexist complete shut down of your case', over here forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of your ability to pick out sexists from non sexists since the definition you're using is 'anyone complaining about Hillary right now'. If that's your stance then there's nothing to speak to you about because you are clearly not apparently capable of engaging with anything else. People who disagree are sexist is not something 'I'm' going to bother to engage with.
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12084

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

MGuy wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:
People who shake their fists at Hillary for not getting the most votes should probably consider the fact that she did indeed get the most votes.

Literally the only non-sexist reason to complain about her talking about how unfairly she was treated is that actually factually she was unfairly treated and is the rightful president of the United States. If she wanted to declare a general uprising and take the White House by force, she would be in her rights to do so and a majority of the country would support her. If you're really concerned over the possibililty that Hillary might actually lead an insurrection against the blatantly unjust establishment that kept her out of power... then it would be totally understandable for you to want her to not write a book or talk about the campaign or the role of public institutions in the election. Literally the only other reason is that you don't think girls should be allowed to talk.

So which is it? Are you a pro-establishment counter-revolutionary, or a sexist pig?

-Frank
Literally my reasons are given and considering that you're trying to build a non case with kaelik, 'Oh look you used vagina while talking so that makes you a sexist complete shut down of your case', over here forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of your ability to pick out sexists from non sexists since the definition you're using is 'anyone complaining about Hillary right now'. If that's your stance then there's nothing to speak to you about because you are clearly not apparently capable of engaging with anything else. People who disagree are sexist is not something 'I'm' going to bother to engage with.


Your reasons were so bad, and so literally unfounded that you admitted they were wrong a page ago.

Every complaint out of your mouth is some version of:

"Well I may not have read her book, and I may know absolutely nothing about the state of complaints in the left, and I may have no knowledge about any past presidential candidate and what happened, and I may not know when elections occur, BUT IT SURE SEEMS TO ME LIKE HILLARY CLINTON IS A FORCE OF GREAT POLARIZATION WHO IS INTERFERING RIGHT NOW IN AN OTHERWISE TOTALLY PEACEFUL NO CONFLICT BETWEEN LEFTISTS AND LIBERALS AT ALL TIME WHEN THE ELECTIONS ARE TOTALLYYYYYY IMMINENT!!!!!"
_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3442
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Kaelik wrote:
MGuy wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:
People who shake their fists at Hillary for not getting the most votes should probably consider the fact that she did indeed get the most votes.

Literally the only non-sexist reason to complain about her talking about how unfairly she was treated is that actually factually she was unfairly treated and is the rightful president of the United States. If she wanted to declare a general uprising and take the White House by force, she would be in her rights to do so and a majority of the country would support her. If you're really concerned over the possibililty that Hillary might actually lead an insurrection against the blatantly unjust establishment that kept her out of power... then it would be totally understandable for you to want her to not write a book or talk about the campaign or the role of public institutions in the election. Literally the only other reason is that you don't think girls should be allowed to talk.

So which is it? Are you a pro-establishment counter-revolutionary, or a sexist pig?

-Frank
Literally my reasons are given and considering that you're trying to build a non case with kaelik, 'Oh look you used vagina while talking so that makes you a sexist complete shut down of your case', over here forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of your ability to pick out sexists from non sexists since the definition you're using is 'anyone complaining about Hillary right now'. If that's your stance then there's nothing to speak to you about because you are clearly not apparently capable of engaging with anything else. People who disagree are sexist is not something 'I'm' going to bother to engage with.


Your reasons were so bad, and so literally unfounded that you admitted they were wrong a page ago.

Every complaint out of your mouth is some version of:

"Well I may not have read her book, and I may know absolutely nothing about the state of complaints in the left, and I may have no knowledge about any past presidential candidate and what happened, and I may not know when elections occur, BUT IT SURE SEEMS TO ME LIKE HILLARY CLINTON IS A FORCE OF GREAT POLARIZATION WHO IS INTERFERING RIGHT NOW IN AN OTHERWISE TOTALLY PEACEFUL NO CONFLICT BETWEEN LEFTISTS AND LIBERALS AT ALL TIME WHEN THE ELECTIONS ARE TOTALLYYYYYY IMMINENT!!!!!"
I didn't admit anything was wrong. I just never said she was wrong. That's just an argument you seemed to want to have that I've never started. So, failing to find anything wrong with anything I actually put forth as the reason behind my great concern all you can do is repeat my concerns in increasingly childish ways because you don't have a counter argument. Well I guess the argument "If you don't like Hillary or anything she does you're a sexist" is technically a counter argument just not one I'm going to fight because of how dumb it is.
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12084

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

MGuy wrote:
I didn't admit anything was wrong. I just never said she was wrong. That's just an argument you seemed to want to have that I've never started. So, failing to find anything wrong with anything I actually put forth as the reason behind my great concern all you can do is repeat my concerns in increasingly childish ways because you don't have a counter argument. Well I guess the argument "If you don't like Hillary or anything she does you're a sexist" is technically a counter argument just not one I'm going to fight because of how dumb it is.


The counter argument, as has already been explained to you, is that every completely unfounded evidenceless claim that you have made about this subject is all completely false.

Pretending you can't read whenever anyone says "you are wrong" doesn't actually erase the words, so our argument isn't "just" that you are sexist, in fact, it's not even that you are sexist. It's just the thing we keep saying, that you are completely wrong.

Your claim that she should have to wait more than 3 years but also never write a book when there's an election in the next 2 years is wrong.

Your argument that her book is making things worse is wrong.

Since you are so very wrong, and since you feel a completely unreasonable desire to pontificate on things you admit you know nothing about with such utter certainty, and since you are so fucking completely full of shit in applying a standard you've never applied before based on your straight up admitted lack of knowledge, the question of why you are being this stupid can be raised. But the fact that you are wrong is so fucking obvious you admitted it.

MGuy wrote:
Seems I was worried over nothing. Trump and Bernie have seized the news cycle. Compared to how hard Trump has apparently shot himself in the foot(by making moves to do the right thing) the book thing looks like it's going to be a footnote.

_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Mask_De_H
Duke


Joined: 18 Jun 2009
Posts: 1784

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Enough people actually did unite behind Hilary in the face of Trump to win her the popular vote. She lost in the Electoral College, which is the most establishment thing.

Being the face of the establishment didn't stop any of the other losers from speaking about their campaigns. I don't remember if it stopped Hillary from speaking about 2012. But I will posit a non-vaginal reason for Hilary antipathy: her writing makes people realize how shitty they were/are in general about this election, and the autopsy she performs on her own campaign makes people (the media) look at their own failure.

Nobody wants to do that, especially in media, especially on the Internet. To defend ego wounds, they flail and scream. It doesn't matter if they're factually wrong; they're right in their heads and that's all that matters. It might not be sexism, but it sure as fuck is narcissism.
_________________
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Last edited by Mask_De_H on Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dimmy
1st Level


Joined: 16 Sep 2017
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Made my account here pretty much to say this:

Wait. Wait-wait-wait. Is there actually any serious question whether somebody whose signature literally says "be sure to beat a b****" is a sexist? Am I...am I understanding this right? Of course he's a sexist. That's one of those...whatcha-call-ems...self-evident propositions, there. I am perplexed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MGuy
Prince


Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 3442
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Kaelik wrote:
MGuy wrote:
I didn't admit anything was wrong. I just never said she was wrong. That's just an argument you seemed to want to have that I've never started. So, failing to find anything wrong with anything I actually put forth as the reason behind my great concern all you can do is repeat my concerns in increasingly childish ways because you don't have a counter argument. Well I guess the argument "If you don't like Hillary or anything she does you're a sexist" is technically a counter argument just not one I'm going to fight because of how dumb it is.


The counter argument, as has already been explained to you, is that every completely unfounded evidenceless claim that you have made about this subject is all completely false.

Pretending you can't read whenever anyone says "you are wrong" doesn't actually erase the words, so our argument isn't "just" that you are sexist, in fact, it's not even that you are sexist. It's just the thing we keep saying, that you are completely wrong.

Your claim that she should have to wait more than 3 years but also never write a book when there's an election in the next 2 years is wrong.

Your argument that her book is making things worse is wrong.

Since you are so very wrong, and since you feel a completely unreasonable desire to pontificate on things you admit you know nothing about with such utter certainty, and since you are so fucking completely full of shit in applying a standard you've never applied before based on your straight up admitted lack of knowledge, the question of why you are being this stupid can be raised. But the fact that you are wrong is so fucking obvious you admitted it.

MGuy wrote:
Seems I was worried over nothing. Trump and Bernie have seized the news cycle. Compared to how hard Trump has apparently shot himself in the foot(by making moves to do the right thing) the book thing looks like it's going to be a footnote.
Ahh. I see. This here at the end isn't me saying I was wrong, that her book and the subsequent hooplah it caused only makes things worse which is what I thought you were arguing against. This is me being relieved that it wasn't that big of a deal. I don't know what you're on about otherwise because my original tipping point was the fact that for a solid week the anti establishment, anti Clinton, burn the left party down to make a new one in its ashes had suddenly exploded back all over the place. My fear was that it would stay. 'Your' objections since then has been:

1) Some off the hand comment about arguments you've had with other people about the media not playing ball.

2) People who don't agree with Hillary are stupid and sexist and you should care more about her book than those people because people have written books before and other failed runners have written books before and she's just like them (if you ignore the current political climate and all of course) with a line thrown in about how I prejudged her book (that I made no commentary on the validity of).

Those were your responses kaelik. Not that I was wrong about actual voters that we lost from when Obama ran are pissed but that she is clearly right about the media (don't care) and that the people who don't agree with her are all stupid and 'sexist' (dumb standard) and I should be mad at them and I should read her book before I judge it (which I didn't). Every response since Johnny highlighted your leap to throwing the sexism thing around has been you (and now Frank) saying "You either agree with what Hillary has done and said or you're a sexist."

That's been your entire stance. Acting as if you have had anything else is strange. You do. I'm sure. have a long laundry list of arguments that back up what's in the book and how people should totally be behind her in her outrage. I'm sure you want to have 'that' argument. So just go on and rant about that. I don't care about her or your need to rant about your 'oh so right and totally never mistaken' analysis of the political situation. I only care about what wins the 2018 voters over. Not high minded self righteousness.

And Mask I agree with you about the media but I'll take it one step farther. They won't care. kaelik and Frank are under some kind of gran illusion that most people care despite polls saying people's faith in that media is at an all time low. The media doesn't have to pay the same price that people like I do with Trump in charge and one of the two most disliked candidates in history coming out swinging at them does next to nothing. Hell I don't need to go on forums that actually argue about it to know how that argument is going to play out. I just don't care about it at all in the first place because regardless of how shitty it is, regardless of the amount of misinformation you can tell people is out there, that is not going to win my sides more seats in Congress. Unity will.

Getting the people to 'want' to vote for our side will. Pissing them off does not and refusing to adapt to the climate you're in because of self righteousness doesn't work. We're playing in a game where our side is at a huge disadvantage because last time we had the ball we barely used it. So clearly getting 3 million more votes than the other guy isn't enough. We need more people in more different 'places' to believe the Left is worth voting for. 3 million votes might be good for the Left's self righteousness boner but it doesn't win the game.
_________________
The first rule of Fatclub. Don't Talk about Fatclub..
I've always thought it best to never hit a lady, but be sure to beat a bitch. -TOZ
MGuy wrote:
Finally a thread about fighters!


Last edited by MGuy on Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:36 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Kaelik
ArchDemon of Rage


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 12084

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

It's honestly kind of impressive how incredibly stupid you are.

Like, how your GOTCHA that no one cares about Clinton's criticism of the media is that faith in the media is at an all time low RIGHT AFTER the thing she criticized the media for.

That's the kind of anti-gotcha that really drives the point home that everything you say comes from a point of willful and total ignorance.

On a similar level of ignorance, you thinking we "barely used the ball" when 2008-2010 was the most productive period in laws passing since JFK died.
_________________
"DSMatticus" wrote:
Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Last edited by Kaelik on Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Leress
Prince


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 2535

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:
Getting the people to 'want' to vote for our side will. Pissing them off does not and refusing to adapt to the climate you're in because of self righteousness doesn't work. We're playing in a game where our side is at a huge disadvantage because last time we had the ball we barely used it. So clearly getting 3 million more votes than the other guy isn't enough. We need more people in more different 'places' to believe the Left is worth voting for. 3 million votes might be good for the Left's self righteousness boner but it doesn't win the game.
How do you think that can be accomplished? You say that Clinton is making a division because she is seen as "the establishment", but where did this image come from? It seems that Clinton was saying that the media has been doing fuck-shit, which seem to coincide with the low opinion of the media. So a section of people on the Left believe the media more than Clinton, but may also think media is not trustworthy, but can be trusted with it's stuff about Clinton? To me it doesn't seem like Clinton is the problem with the division of the Left, but the Left itself not knowing what the fuck it wants to be and not have hypocritical stances and views. I agree with Mask on this, it looks more like egos and narcissism to me.
_________________
"Excuse me. You got your penis in my woman. Correct yourself."
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)


Last edited by Leress on Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maglag
Duke


Joined: 02 Apr 2015
Posts: 1106

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Leress wrote:
Quote:
Getting the people to 'want' to vote for our side will. Pissing them off does not and refusing to adapt to the climate you're in because of self righteousness doesn't work. We're playing in a game where our side is at a huge disadvantage because last time we had the ball we barely used it. So clearly getting 3 million more votes than the other guy isn't enough. We need more people in more different 'places' to believe the Left is worth voting for. 3 million votes might be good for the Left's self righteousness boner but it doesn't win the game.
How do you think that can be accomplished? You say that Clinton is making a division because she is seen as "the establishment", but where did this image come from? It seems that Clinton was saying that the media has been doing fuck-shit, which seem to coincide with the low opinion of the media. So a section of people on the Left believe the media more than Clinton, but may also think media is not trustworthy, but can be trusted with it's stuff about Clinton? To me it doesn't seem like Clinton is the problem with the division of the Left, but the Left itself not knowing what the fuck it wants to be and not have hypocritical stances and views. I agree with Mask on this, it looks more like egos and narcissism to me.


Do remember, Clinton (not the first of their name) had already lost the race to president 8 years ago. The Left voters already had made it pretty clear they weren't that excited about having another Clinton on the white house.
_________________
FrankTrollman wrote:

Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.


Last edited by maglag on Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Judging__Eagle
Prince


Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 4568
Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

FrankTrollman wrote:
People who shake their fists at Hillary for not getting the most votes should probably consider the fact that she did indeed get the most votes.

...

So which is it? Are you a pro-establishment counter-revolutionary, or a sexist pig?

-Frank


This makes me wonder: what would an America where Clinton did everything possible to apply the fact that they did win the popular vote possibly look like?

Also, what if Clinton went beyond everything possible to push the fact that, yes, the people did vote for her over other evils.
_________________
Click here to see the hidden message (It might contain spoilers)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gaming Den Forum Index -> MPSIMS All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 505, 506, 507 ... 512, 513, 514  Next
Page 506 of 514

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group