Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, February 15, 2013

Republicans are scum

I've said it before and it bears repeating...

Republicans are scum.

Republicans are scum.

Republicans are scum.

Republicans are scum.

Republicans are scum.

Republicans are scum.

Republicans are scum.

Republicans are scum.

Republicans are scum.

Republicans are scum.

Can anyone tell me why they would vote for or support the Republicans when, in order to 'win' the argument, they have to lie with every breath they draw?

William once said that he's a Conservative because he didn't want to be a Liberal. (IOW: He'd rather be wrong than Liberal. Aaaaand... that's idiotic.)

Why am I Liberal?  Because the alternative is throwing in with the lying liars who constantly lie to and insult me by either assuming I'm too stupid to see through their lies, or crooked enough to accept their lies anyway.

It always brings back two favorite points of mine:

1) In any argument the Liberal will always prove that you're wrong, whilst the Conservative will always prove that you're Liberal.

2) Conservatives only come in two flavors: Evil and Stupid. One's lyin' and the other's buyin'.

163 comments:

  1. I think a big part of the problem is that conservatives have succeeded in pushing the center point of debate to the right. Obama is hardly more than Republican-lite, but nobody on the right can bear the thought of accepting anything he does or says. Even Reagan (a man who got shot by a lunatic with a gun bought at a pawn shop and still opposed gun control) said he didn't see any reason for people to own assault rifles. But banning those and high-capacity magazines, which used to be something that essentially everyone could agree on, is now a point of contention.

    It goes back to what I've said innumerable times;the two-party system does not work. I feel sorry for moderate Republicans, because they're stuck. By their identification, they're not supposed to vote for Democrats, but then the Republicans keep getting crazier and more dishonest by the day. This current strategy wouldn't work without political parties, because people would just vote for who they agree with on the issues, with no other filter to deal with.

    Since that's not going to change, though, the only hope is that Republicans start to push back against the extremism and try to return to the days of rational debate. And that's not much of a hope, either.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to admit that there is a connection between violent video games and the way kids are being affected by them. She needs to protect her 'friends' in Hollywood from being blamed for our reduced morals.

    I guess if being a democrat (liberal) means you can stick your head in the sand and ignore obvious truths, then of course you would think the other people (non-democrats) are nutty. Who would want to be a republican when you can be a democrat and just ignore the problems until they go away. Example of what I mean: how many of you democrats (liberals) own an electric car? Well, to those who have not bought one yet: So you deny that autos are a cause to the climate change problem the world has, today? Because if you were honest with yourselves and to your primary cause, then you would STOP participating in causing climate change. But, Nooooo, all of you feel the change has to come from somewhere else, not from you. Is that a little too honest for you? Then give me a real good excuse why none of you have given up poison-spewing automobiles, besides "inconvenience".

    Because if sticking your head in the sand instead of facing reality, then democrats are so much better than republicans. I don't say republicans are any different, but, hardly worthy the isolated scrutiny (here) while defending democrats as the lone purveyors of goodness and joy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to admit that there is a connection between violent video games and the way kids are being affected by them. She needs to protect her 'friends' in Hollywood from being blamed for our reduced morals."

      Hollywood makes video games? Incidentally, the phrase "connection between violent video games and the way kids are being affected by them" is redundant. If there's an effect, then there's a connection. You should say "violent video games and children's behavior".

      "I guess if being a democrat (liberal) means you can stick your head in the sand and ignore obvious truths..."

      Why is the idea of video games causing mass murder an "obvious truth"? It's at the very least debatable, and I'm curious what studies you have at the ready to support your case. Or is it just your gut instinct?

      "Who would want to be a republican when you can be a democrat and just ignore the problems until they go away."

      Like ignoring the gun-show loophole? http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/01/21/16624365-gop-senator-gun-show-loophole-doesnt-exist?lite

      "Example of what I mean: how many of you democrats (liberals) own an electric car?"

      Well, being on a military salary myself, I can't afford one. I don't suppose you factored finances into your little rant, since it would interfere with your prejudices.

      "I don't say republicans are any different, but, hardly worthy the isolated scrutiny (here) while defending democrats as the lone purveyors of goodness and joy."

      Congratulations, you've beaten that strawman into the ground. The point isn't about "lone purveyors of goodness and joy" it's that Republicans obviously have to go to disgusting lengths to justify their rhetoric and positions. For instance, Ablow's insanely unethical diagnoses of Obama, which was linked. Where's the liberal counterpart of that? Or Limbaugh's raging dishonesty? Or anyone as severely unhinged as LaPierre having a voice in the public debate? If you're going to talk on the subject, try figuring out what the actual subject is.

      Delete
  3. "Well, being on a military salary myself, I can't afford one. I don't suppose you factored finances into your little rant, since it would interfere with your prejudices." ... Well, that's as good an excuse as any. I knew you'd have an excuse one way or the other. Democrats (liberals) are just hypocritical that way. Yes, I factored in finances. They only cost $25K. So, my "prejudices" are well placed and expressed. Democrats WILL whine about the failures of others, but ignore their own failures and make a multitude of excuses for them. THAT IS the subject, isn't it? How the republican lies about this, that and the other thing? As if democrats never do that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. "They only cost $25K."

      Oh, only? You have no concept of reality. Sure, everyone should run out and buy a new car, or you're allowed to generalize about Democrats. I can't afford one, whether you claim I should be able to or not. You tell me how to put off my other expenses, line-by-line, and then you'll have a point.

      "Democrats WILL whine about the failures of others, but ignore their own failures and make a multitude of excuses for them. THAT IS the subject, isn't it? How the republican lies about this, that and the other thing? As if democrats never do that?"

      Again, you're making a strawman argument. Nobody's claiming Democrats are perfect. The article also isn't talking about the rank-and-file of Republicans, nor is it focused on politicians. Did you read the links? Even scan over them, maybe? If you had, you might notice that it's about how things are twisted in the media. When you have examples of how anyone on the left is even remotely as disgraceful as Limbaugh, or blatant lies are pushed unrepentently on MSNBC, etc, then you can talk on the subject.

      By the way, serving my country and supporting an extended family is not "failure". You just displayed your morality at work.

      Delete
    3. "I can't afford one, whether you claim I should be able to or not. You tell me how to put off my other expenses, line-by-line, and then you'll have a point." ... get rid of your cable and multiple phones and you'll save about $150 a month. Let's see, a loan on $25K will put payments at about $300 a month (you're military). I've just figured a way for you to pay for 1/3 of that electric car. Then the money you save on gas (about $60 a week?). That adds up to $240 a month. There I've just accounted for your car payments and you only have to give up cable and stick with one phone in the house. Then, after 5 years and that car is paid off, you can get your cable and multiple phones back. Not much of an inconvenience when saving the planet is the result. Oh, right, I forgot, your ilk doesn't want to be inconvenienced. You think everyone else should suffer, but not the liberal. No hypocrisy there.

      Delete
    4. How the hell do you think that anyone in the military with a family can manage with one phone? I need one, without question, since I need to be available to my NCOs. So, that's not going to work. As for the loan, that's probably not going to happen because of my wife's credit, and you're assuming I can afford another $300 a month. Also, what part of "supporting an extended family" did you not grasp? I have very little disposable income.

      Oh, maybe I shouldn't eat. There's an idea, right? If I starve myself, then maybe I could do it. I wouldn't want you to think that I don't want to be "inconvenienced" or anything.

      Idiot.

      Delete
    5. I wasn't required to own a phone when I was in the army. Wow, things certainly have changed since then.

      Due to your lack of reading skills, you ASSUME that you need an EXTRA $300 a month. So, how much is your cable bill per month? How much are you phone bills? Yeah, to inconvenience a liberal means they will demand that everyone else pick up the slack for them. Apparently, that is MOST TRUE when they whine about climate change and how to correct it.
      But, you and Eddie can just keep on blaming others for your own failures and ineptitudes. After all: Republicans are scum for not following climate change corrective ideas, right? Democrats are heros when they ignore corrective ideas? I think you're missing a couple tools from your shed. You better go look.

      Delete
    6. "I wasn't required to own a phone when I was in the army. Wow, things certainly have changed since then."

      I didn't say they forced it, but it's a need. The alternative is that I become an inconvenience compared to every other soldier, for the single reason that I'm buying a car that I don't need. Are you sure you're familiar with how the Army works? It sure doesn't sound like it.

      "Due to your lack of reading skills, you ASSUME that you need an EXTRA $300 a month. So, how much is your cable bill per month? How much are you phone bills?"

      The phone can't be touched, again. Cable wouldn't work very well either, since grandkids stay over often. You can call a lot of things "inconvenience" but you can't build up a list of forty "cons" and reasonably expect someone to make that choice. Besides that, again, the loan itself is highly questionable. So where does that leave you?

      I know my finances. You don't. You can keep saying the same crap over and over again, but in the end you'll always just be talking out of your ass.

      Delete
    7. "Cable wouldn't work very well either, since grandkids stay over often." ... Yes, and there you have it, folks ... climate change is so inconveniant that we would rather let the grand-kids watch cartoons than prevent world-wide catastrophy. Gotta love that democratic priority system. They complain about republicans not supporting climate change proventative measures, but ignore 'em themselves and are pleased as punch at their actions.

      "Besides that, again, the loan itself is highly questionable. So where does that leave you?" ... Well then, lease a Leaf for under $200 like everyone else can (the gas savings alone pays for that). Well, at least the people that ACTUALLY CARE.
      On second thought. Don't do anything to prevent climate change. And continue to whine about how republicans block implimentation of anti-climate-change regulations. That way, when climate change destroys our planet you can say: I told you so. Great plan you democrats have. Wow, the genious behind that one is mind-boggling.

      Delete
    8. Again, since you can't read;" You can call a lot of things "inconvenience" but you can't build up a list of forty "cons" and reasonably expect someone to make that choice." For instance, I could stop paying for programs like gymnastics and basketball for my grandkids, which currently help to make them better-adjusted and well-rounded individuals. Yet another downside which you don't care about because it interferes with your aggressive efforts to demonize all liberals.

      Your standards, as always, are idiotic. I'm supposed to feel personally responsible for "world-wide catastrophe" if I don't put myself in a ridiculous position for the cause. How that is supposed to be equivalent to legislators not doing their job is a mystery of your deluded mind.

      By the way, is that $200 with no money down? And how much gas do you really expect someone to save when they live a few minutes off-post? Plus the fact that electricity isn't free, while you act like it is. So no, I wouldn't pay for a lease just by gas savings, so continue to talk out of your ass. You're not going to make a point, so feel free to keep embarrassing yourself.

      Delete
    9. "Yet another downside which you don't care about because it interferes with your aggressive efforts to demonize all liberals." ... And the "aggressive efforts to demonize all" republicans is acceptable? Thanks for showing what being a democrat is all about.

      "I'm supposed to feel personally responsible for "world-wide catastrophe" if I don't put myself in a ridiculous position for the cause." ... Of course not. I would never expect a democrat to participate in the demands they expect others to follow. I mean, why do democrats even begin to whine about climate change if they have no intentions of actually correcting anything? The way I see it is that democrats and republicans are identical. Both lie to, whine about and curse each other with no purpose other than to say they are better. Which neither are.

      Delete
    10. "... And the "aggressive efforts to demonize all" republicans is acceptable?"

      Who's trying to demonize all Republicans? There's nothing about the rank-and-file of the right in those links, as I pointed out to you at least once already. And if that is your complaint, then why (again) wouldn't you say something like what I did, where I specified that it's a problem with the power structure of the party? Instead, you make this extremely weak case for equivalence which is built on a strawman. Nobody's stopping you from making a better argument, so don't whine because you failed to do so.

      "... Of course not. I would never expect a democrat to participate in the demands they expect others to follow."

      In other words, you can't defend your absurd standard.

      "The way I see it is that democrats and republicans are identical. Both lie to, whine about and curse each other with no purpose other than to say they are better. Which neither are."

      You may actually "see it" that way, but the fact that you failed in spectacular fashion to present anything that countered Eddie's examples shows that your views have no basis in reality.

      And since you haven't shown any signs that you're going to change that, you don't really have anything else to say, do you?

      Delete
    11. "In other words, you can't defend your absurd standard." ... No, "in other words" democrats are hypocrites. When they walk the walk, then they won't be hypocrites, but since they cause climate change and then whine about republicans for blocking climate change regulations while doing nothing (on their own) to stop/slow climate change they (you) are hypocrites.

      Delete
    12. "... No, "in other words" democrats are hypocrites."

      No, you can't explain how your standard is reasonable, therefore you have no grounds to claim hypocrisy. No matter how many times you make the assertion, it's not enough. You actually have to make an effort to justify it. Sorry about that.

      Delete
    13. You should have continued reading past what you copy/pasted.

      Delete
    14. I did. Is it somehow different from what you posted however many times previously? Does it make your standard reasonable?

      Let me save you the pixels;it isn't, and it doesn't.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    15. And, you are assuming I post to your standards. Unfortunately, I have standards higher than you, so those of us who aren't a grand-parent/college kid/grunt all wrapped up in one aren't interested in getting permission from you to post.
      However, since you cannot defend your position, while I do, then I guess there is nothing else I could say to you. Good luck with your hypocrisy and lies.

      Delete
    16. Nobody said you couldn't post. Just make better arguments, or you'll get called out for it. Sorry you can't handle the pressure.

      "However, since you cannot defend your position, while I do, then I guess there is nothing else I could say to you."

      You haven't demonstrated anything I haven't defended, the same way you never demonstrated any lies I've told. Again;"Is your only option to attack posters who point out your failures?"

      Anything besides your condescending bullshit, for a change? I can do this for months.

      Delete
  4. 1) Video games don't cause violently psychotic behavior. Do you have any idea how many people play those gams? It's a multi-billion dollar industry. Pretty much EVERYONE plays vidoe games these days. There popularity has been increasing for years, and yet violent crime much hasnt follwoed suit. It's just an idiotic RW scapegoat. So good for Nancy Pelosi for not caving to your propaganda I like her more and more every time you lot bitch about her. (Show me the evidence.)

    2) My next car very much might be an electric. We'll see. But I wonder how that's going to stop global warming when the electricity I charge it with comes mostly from Coal, Natural Gas, etc... I don't want "other people to fix it" because I'm "Liberal."

    I want SENSIBLE PUBLIC POLICY at both the FEDERAL and INTERNATIONAL LEVEL regarding carbon polution and cimate change becuase I'm an ENGINEER with an MBA and realize both (1) what is actually needed in order to be effective and (2) whiy this won't come about via lessoie faire economics and market forces.

    And besdies...

    If you're seriously comparing my not ownggn an electric car or Pelosi's refusing to ban video games to the LIES that I just gave so many far more egregious and downrigth scumsucking examples of, then you've bascially got nothing. If that's your idea of "both sides do it?" YOU'VE PROVEN THAT THEY DON'T.

    Thank you for playing. Come again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "1) Video games don't cause violently psychotic behavior." .... Sticking your head in the sand?

      http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/videogames1.pdf
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/9593188/Violent-video-games-make-teenagers-more-aggressive-study-finds.html
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-out-outside-in/201212/violent-video-games-and-movies-causing-violent-behavior
      http://www.kplctv.com/story/21194054/violent-video-games-may-boost-aggressive-behavior
      http://kotaku.com/5976733/do-video-games-make-you-violent-an-in+depth-look-at-everything-we-know-today
      http://www.grandtheftchildhood.com/GTC/Home.html
      http://old.post-gazette.com/headlines/19990427games4.asp
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_controversies

      A quote from the wiki link: "Researchers found that people who played a violent video game for three consecutive days showed increases in aggressive behavior and hostile expectations each day they played."

      Yeah, thanks for playing. Let's see, video games (violent ones) have been around since the 70's? Also, let's see ... that is right about the exact time frame I used to claim school mass shootings ALL occurred and the beginning of the lowering of morals in our country. You're right, Eddie, there is NO connection between violent video games and violent behavior. Can I use your sandbox to bury my head into also, like you and your ilk do?

      Delete
    2. " that is right about the exact time frame I used to claim school mass shootings ALL occurred " .... I should correct that to "started" not "occurred". Thank you

      Delete
    3. "Aggressive" doesn't equate mass murder. If the issue was students overreacting violently to invididual conflict, that might apply. Planning on going into a school and killing as many people as possible is simply not in the same ballpark, and you don't have anything to say otherwise.

      You're a mile off from "obvious truth".

      (reposted, in case the original appears)

      Delete
    4. Didn't a couple of the school mass murderers, recently, indicate they used video games to help them train to shoot and desensitize themselves to death? I thought I read that in one of the MANY links I brought that show a connection between violent video games and violent behavior. I KNOW that is true for Anders Behring Breivik (look that one up). Otherwise, that was a pretty stupid and uneducated statement for Eddie to make. Even more stupid and uneducated for you to defend him and it.

      ""Aggressive" doesn't equate mass murder. " ... You going off on semantics again? That's a good way to admit defeat, isn't it?

      Delete
    5. "But I wonder how that's going to stop global warming when the electricity I charge it with comes mostly from Coal, Natural Gas, etc... " ... It is well known that you can buy solar panels (those are the things that create electricity from sunlight) that will produce enough electricity to take you and your home "off the grid" including charging a car. Which means you are using NO natural gas produced electricity AND NO coal produced electricity.

      But, all that doesn't matter any more, does it? Since we have basically reached the 'point of no return' on the climate change issue. Even if every country in the world stopped burning oil based products the damage has been done. So, you democrats (liberals) keep burning that gasoline and using all that oil ... and keep complaining about climate change. Since NONE of you are actually willing to DO anything except complain about how the republicans got YOU into this mess.

      Delete
    6. So... YOU put "the declining" of our morals arouund the 1970's? I wonder how you measure that? It's an interesting choice. Some (Older, or more Conservtaive folks) would say the 1960's. (Due to Drugs, sex, liberals, etc..) I would say the 1980's. (Greed, Reagan.) I've even heard the 1990's (Usually from 20-30 somethings). Also... What "violent" games were around in th 1970's? Pacman? Atari? Pong? Seriously?

      The first REALLY violent game was DOOM. 1993, as I recall. That one was pretty bad - lots of blood, first person perspective. (Similar to miltary training simulations.) But there were plenty of spree shootings prior to that. BTW... first really big school "shooting"? Univeristy of Texas, 1966. Let's see... Gun state? Check? Violent Video Games? Not unless you count the Tic-Tac-Toe game that the Compute in MIT's basement could play. And before that, 1927 - the Bath School fire-bonbing. Worst school killing in American History. (Did you TAKE History?) I wonder aaht video games of violent movies Andrew Kehoe played/watched?

      Also - those studies look at a couple hundered, to even a couple thousand NORMAL people and say "they got more agressive." Fine. Did anyone of them kill anyone? No. Have 99.9999999999% of the Tenbs, maybe HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of Americans who play game, watch "bad" movies (however you define them) read "bad" literature (in any format)? Nope. Do they say that video games produce psychoaths? Nope. Do they STUDY their effect on known psychopaths? Nope. nicve try. But it falls way short. (especially since you would propose... what? Outlawing them?)

      You first need to learn the difference between correlationa nd cauality. And get a sense of perspctive. How you can think that video games are dangerous and guns aren't baffles me. The only thing you lot DON'T want to regulate is industry and guns.

      Speaking of hypocrisy...

      As far solar panels? Yeah - I'll buy some of those too eventually, when I have the money. Righty after my electric car. Why not? I wouldn't mind getting of the grid at all. But you lot keep supporting politcians that want to end solar (and wind) subsidies and keep supporting big oil (gas, coal, etc...) What good does it do any one person to spend all that money, make all that effort, only to have it all undermined by a public policy that undoes all the good they did? BOTH are needed: Individual inititive and god public policy. And I'm donig plenty to fix climate change: I'm voting for democrats who want that good public policy.

      Oh yeah, and I love how you lot have gone from "It's not happening" and then "we're not causing it" to "it's too late anyway." Except that... Yes it is, yes we are and no it isn't.

      But keep reading the Blaze and WND and all those other dogshit sites you parrot ad nauseum. (OPr do you just watch Fox and listen to Limbaugh?) I'll continue to support PUBLIC POLICY that makes sense for stabalizing the GLOBAL CLIMATE.

      Delete
    7. "Didn't a couple of the school mass murderers, recently, indicate they used video games to help them train to shoot and desensitize themselves to death?"

      Did they? Because that would suggest they intended to go on a killing spree before playing the games.

      "... You going off on semantics again? That's a good way to admit defeat, isn't it?"

      So demonstrating that you're not proving what you're claiming to prove is to admit defeat? Only in your world.

      Delete
    8. "So... YOU put "the declining" of our morals arouund the 1970's?" ... No, I put the declining morals at around the 60's. Do you remember the war protesters of that time? They were the beginning of it and it has continued with the highly restrictive death penalty process. The liberal agenda has brought 'free sex/drugs' in the 60's and beyond, acceptance of homosexuality during the 70's, removal of religion from schools in the 80's and demands of excessive government assistance throughout the entire time.

      "The first REALLY violent game was DOOM. 1993, as I recall. That one was pretty bad - lots of blood, first person perspective" ... What a coincidence because of the 64 "school massacres" that are listed on wikipedia ONLY 16 occurred BEFORE THAT TIME. And, FACTUALLY, the first violent video game came out in 1976 (Death Race). With ONLY 11 of those 64 school massacres happening before 1976 (2 in 1975). But, it is quite cute how you used examples of 2 incidences (that happened before 76) to bolster your defense that violence does not beget violence. Usually you bring facinating links from uber scientists who fully support your stance on a given subject. This time you bring NO supporting links. Couldn't find any or just lazy?

      "How you can think that video games are dangerous and guns aren't baffles me." .... What makes you think that? Did you see HOW a majority of those school mass murders occurred?

      "The only thing you lot DON'T want to regulate is industry and guns." ... Again, what makes you think that? And who is the "your lot" you keep referring to? Is that a way you can bunch everyone together who doesn't agree with you ilk?


      Oh BTW, Charles Whitman murdered because of gambling debts and violence within his family structure (high morals during the time frame I expressed?). Eat on that one for a while. While I don't like violence of any kind, at least I'm not burying my head in the sand and denying it happens and why.

      "Why not? I wouldn't mind getting of the grid at all. " ... Obviously, you know very little about alternative power for cars. Perhaps we should not discuss this. Obviously, you know even less about climate change. You would be better off sticking with subjects you do know about: love for homosexuality and transgenderism, and hate of republicans and religion.

      "What good does it do any one person to spend all that money, make all that effort, only to have it all undermined by a public policy that undoes all the good they did?" ... And because all liberals seem to feel that way, you get my attitude about the liberal hypocrisy concerning climate change. I don't care what decision YOU make, but it is fact that if that decision isn't pro-electric car then you are a hypocrite, too, when it concerns climate change. You feel that you don't need to change your habits because no one else is, so why bother. That is a VERY educated decision you make there. What did you say your college expertise was?

      "I'll continue to support PUBLIC POLICY that makes sense for stabalizing the GLOBAL CLIMATE." ... OH? And, what PUBLIC POLICY is that? WHAT is going to "stabalize" the GLOBAL CLIMATE?!? Because most of the climate change supporting scientists now say we are at the point of no return. That means the scientists you believe in say "stabalizing" is NOT possible. How are you going to prove them wrong? By whining about republicans? Wow, great plan on saving the world.

      Delete
    9. First of all, “you lot” is not “anyone who disagrees with me. I’m getting tired of having to debunk this, but the FACT of the matter is that I have disagreed with literally every single poster here at one point or another. Just ask them: Steeve on the Origin of Christianity, JLarue & Conchobhar on the Death Penalty, ClassicLiberal on Obamacare, Filibusters and Gun Control, Brabantio on Stem Cell research, just to name a few.) “You lot” has only be applied to you and William, and refers to self-Identified “Conservatives” who vote Republican, and scapegoat “Liberals” for all the world’s problems, blissfully unaware of the damage done by their own Ideology. It has nothing to do even with you not being “Liberal” (Okipoli self-identified as “Conservative Republican” and he might be the only poster I never had a serious debate or disagreement with!) Nor does it have to do with the mere fact that you’re religious. Steve and JLarue have both expressed this religious faith here, and while we’ve disagreed on things related to it, they have generally been respectful and have been treated accordingly. You (and William) come here, post hate, and then have the gall to call me a hypocrite when you’re treated in kind. Hey: no one’s forcing you to keep coming back. If you want to come in, and get down and rumble, please feel free. But you’re going to get a FIGHT. Every time. I PORIMISE you that much, and take pride in delivering it.

      Now, onto your post… Holy crap, where to even begin?
      “Death Race?” Seriously?! Have you ever SEEN the game? If that’s what you call a “violent video game” then I don’t even need to rebut the rest of your post. It’s idiotic, and you’re a clueless kook. Get a clue. Google it. It’s a basically just a RACING game. With shitty, 1-bit graphics, I might add. You might as well include Pre-Madden Football and Pre-Tyson Punch Out Boxing games in that was well. Here’s a clue: If it doesn’t even resemble actual violence in the game play, then the adreleline/dopamine rush is coming from just having a good time playing a game, not from the fact that you’re being “violent.” (Why don’t you tell about how mean Mario was to those poor, poor mushroom people?) (Why don’t we ban Football, Hockey, Boxing, MMA and Rastlin’ while we’re at it?) (And how long will it be before people’s guns are the only thing you AREN’T coming for?)

      And BTW, I’m not refuting the general findings of the papers. Just pointing out that this is insufficient evidence to conclude that, in a society without such games, we would not still glorify guns as we do, the culture of which predates even computers, and any of these tragic events would have happened. You ask me how I think these people died? Well I’m pretty sure none of them were clubbed to death with an X-Box. So you’ll ban video games and violent movies huh? I bet you’ll still vote for Republicans that will fight & obstruct every anti-poverty & economic recovery measure that’s ever proposed. Yeah, I suppose you think there’s nothing linking poverty to violence on a socio-economic level, huh? How’s that sand? Is it warm? Does it feel good?

      And as for everything you said about climate change? Oh, PLEASE enlighten me on climate change. This oughta be good. I’ve heard the hypocrisy charge before, and I’ve refuted it. It’s stupid. It makes no sense to anyone but you lot, and it’s completely absurd COMING from you lot, seeing as you you’ve been supporting politicians that have denying that it’s even happening for generations now. (But as a self-fellating platitude, I guess it makes you feel smugly satisfied.)

      Also, I don’t have to “prove them wrong,” because the idea that we have already passed the point of no return is not the prevailing scientific viewpoint. You want a link? Try MMFA, try RealClimate, try ANY site that not solely dedicated to Propagandizing for the Right.

      Whatever. I’m done here, because you ceded every single item I posted (by not bothering to comment on any of them) and decided to turn this into another front in your moral crusade against video games.

      Delete
    10. Here's another article that implies ANOTHER connection between violent video games and violent behavior: "The CBS report also claims that Lanza was obsessed with first-person shooter computer games and that his attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School was him "acting out the fantasies of a video game," where each death added to his "score." They claim he played violent games for hours in his darkened bedroom and believed he was honing his shooting skills by doing so."
      http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/02/was-newtown-shooter-trying-mimic-norways-massacre/62272/
      (and to think YOU and your ilk are blaming the guns)

      Do you still want to keep you head stuck in the sand? Are you too proud to admit when you are wrong? Is your only option to attack posters who point out your failures? Violent video games do EXACTLY what I say they do. And, you refuse to accept that because of your blinding hate. You must play video games quite often. Perhaps Big Brother should be watching you to prevent the next big spree.

      "“Death Race?” Seriously?! Have you ever SEEN the game?" ... No, never seen it, never played it. Of course I'm not out there shooting people either, so those violent video games have not affected me. I think you play violent video games, often. Is that true? Obviously it is, does that cause your lack of ability to interact sociably with other people?
      The POINT is that YOU are WRONG. Violent video games came out nearly 20 YEARS before you admit they did. "How" violent was NOT an issue. THE ISSUE was that it was violent.

      "Oh, PLEASE enlighten me on climate change." ... Climate change is caused by exhaust gases from internal combustion engines. It used to be caused by cutting trees in Brazil, but they changed their minds and now say it is exhaust gases. So if you want to stop climate change, you must stop using internal combustion engines. If you whine about the dangers of climate change and continue to cause it, then you are a hypocrite. Rocket science at work.

      "Whatever. I’m done here, because you ceded every single item I posted (by not bothering to comment on any of them) " ... Good for you. Make a decision and stick to it. I suspect you'll be back whining about something that offends you. It won't be long, everything seems to offend you. You post such hate filled articles. Have you ever tried being nice to people? Wait, you're a democrat ... that ain't happening, huh? Democrats hate, hate, hate, then whine, whine, whine when someone dares question them. So, good for you ... run away.

      Delete
    11. "The new story paints a compelling picture of Lanza as a hyper-competitive loner fueled by an addiction to video games, but doesn't really offer anything solid to build that picture on. The "law enforcement sources" are not only anonymous, it's not even clear what their role in the investigation is."

      "Lanza did not leave behind a note (and unlike Breivik) he did not allow himself to be captured, so any attempt to divine what was "in his mind" seems presumptuous, and is unlikely to be more than a guess."

      Way to read your own links, genius.

      "Violent video games came out nearly 20 YEARS before you admit they did. "How" violent was NOT an issue. THE ISSUE was that it was violent."

      Sorry, Eddie, he has a point here. There was a clear spike in "gremlins" getting run over by cars after that game came out.

      "Is your only option to attack posters who point out your failures?"

      The irony is just delicious.

      Delete
    12. "Way to read your own links, genius." ... What does that have to do with the fact that Lanza used violent video games to desensitize himself and train himself to shoot multiple targets. But, yeah, I read the article ... and no, none of your concerns are legitimate.

      "Sorry, Eddie, he has a point here." ... Thank you. I'm glad you are able to see that facts speak for themselves and I don't need the lies that Eddie brings to promote his form of hate. Remember, bringing hate towards republicans/right-wingers is fully acceptable (at this site), but should that hate be directed towards anything that leans a tiny bit left, then that person is chastised for being hateful. (just making that mental note so when Eddie whines about hateful posters, he knows where the "hypocrite" line is drawn)

      "The irony is just delicious." ... And, my "failures" have been pointed out ... WHERE? When you get a failure of mine, you could have a point, but otherwise ... just another strawman point to distract from the obvious: republicans aren't the only scum. I sure hope that isn't too hateful for Eddie to handle or he may cry about it again.

      It's very cute how the left-leaners (on this site) will complain and complain about republicans and rightwingers with hateful messages and stories and statements, but should anyone point out the obvious failures of democrats and leftwingers suddenly "hate" is screamed by the democrat. The irony is just delicious.


      Brabantio? Were you going to bring anything besides you crying about facts? AGAIN


      Delete
    13. "Can anyone tell me why they would vote for or support the Republicans when, in order to 'win' the argument, they have to lie with every breath they draw?" ... is this the kind of question you ask after it has been pointed out that you've lied several times to promote your HATE of republicans/conservatives? What reason do YOU use to excuse the lies you bring to "win" the argument? Maybe you just lie with every other breath and that makes YOUR lies OK?

      "You ... come here, post hate, and then have the gall to call me a hypocrite when you’re treated in kind." ... Wow, you start this article saying "Republicans are scum" over and over. And, then have the nerve to complain about being called a hypocrite by someone using your same hateful style? Simply Wow


      "And BTW, I’m not refuting the general findings of the papers. Just pointing out that this is insufficient evidence to conclude that, in a society without such games, we would not still glorify guns as we do, the culture of which predates even computers, and any of these tragic events would have happened." ... This one has to be the clincher of all time.
      Eddie, explain how our culture "glorified guns" before we had ANY video games. I'm old enough to remember 'before video games' and I just did not see ANY glorifying of guns (as you say was present). How can you make that assertion without some kind of evidence? Are democrats required to bring evidence of what they say or is that demand only applicable to republicans and non-democrats? Why is it that when a scientific study shows facts to be different than what the democrat claims they say then the study is considered junk science? Haven't the democrats learned from climate change that claiming 'junk science' only shows your inability to understand simple facts?

      BTW, it's too bad you chose to stop posting, Eddie. It would have been interesting to hear your reasons for the lies you promoted and used to "win an argument". Are you a closet republican? You sure act like one.

      Eddie says:
      Yeah, I suppose you think there’s nothing linking poverty to violence on a socio-economic level, huh?
      So you’ll ban video games and violent movies huh? I bet you’ll still vote for Republicans that will fight & obstruct every anti-poverty & economic recovery measure that’s ever proposed.
      And how long will it be before people’s guns are the only thing you AREN’T coming for?

      Um, You democrats sure are good at assuming things. Have you ever considered thinking instead of just regurgitating what others tell you? You know NOTHING about my stances on "anti-poverty", "economic recovery measures", "guns" or what I want to "ban". Ask, or continue to assume. I'll expect the assume part, you democrats are very good at that.

      Delete
    14. "... What does that have to do with the fact that Lanza used violent video games to desensitize himself and train himself to shoot multiple targets."

      Nothing, but if he was training himself in that manner, then (again) he had already decided to kill people. You're putting the cart before the horse.

      "... And, my "failures" have been pointed out ... WHERE?"

      Well, one example that positively leaps to mind is you calling me a racist because you couldn't address the point that your rationale that hatred against homosexuals was a reason to consider homosexuality as "harmful" could just as easily apply to prejudice against interracial couples. Let's look at your hypocritical quote again:"Is your only option to attack posters who point out your failures?" Apparently, since you couldn't address the point, slandering me baselessly was your only option. Do you really want to go down this road? I dare you to. Please.

      "When you get a failure of mine, you could have a point, but otherwise ... just another strawman point to distract from the obvious: republicans aren't the only scum."

      You don't know what a "strawman" is, obviously. Your argument that anyone was saying that Democrats were pure as the driven snow was a strawman, because you manufactured a position nobody was taking in order to pretend you had a valid point to make.

      You're welcome.

      Delete
    15. "Nothing, but if he was training himself in that manner, then (again) he had already decided to kill people." ... then all he had to do was pick a method that he would be able to train himself to achieve his goal. Voila ... video games are available that teach that exact thing. You're right ... no connection between violent video games and violent reality. So, if I'm to become the good sheeple that you are, do I need to keep saying that over and over?

      "Your argument that anyone was saying that Democrats were pure as the driven snow was a strawman, because you manufactured a position nobody was taking in order to pretend you had a valid point to make." ... in essence, what you're saying is that Eddie can hatefully and acceptably point out the deficincies of republicans , but if likewise is done to democrats, in response, then it is called hateful and unacceptable? Ok, gotcha.

      Delete
    16. "... then all he had to do was pick a method that he would be able to train himself to achieve his goal. Voila ... video games are available that teach that exact thing."

      Oh, so we've gone from "Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to admit that there is a connection between violent video games and the way kids are being affected by them. She needs to protect her 'friends' in Hollywood from being blamed for our reduced morals" to the argument that video games can be used for the wrong purposes. The key word of "affected" has magically slipped away. Even better:""1) Video games don't cause violently psychotic behavior." .... Sticking your head in the sand?" That word "cause" is troublesome for you, now.

      "... in essence, what you're saying is that Eddie can hatefully and acceptably point out the deficincies of republicans , but if likewise is done to democrats, in response, then it is called hateful and unacceptable?"

      If that was your demonstration of how you now understand the concept of a strawman argument, then I'm impressed. That was another excellent example. I invited you to make a similar argument for Democrats, if you could;"The point isn't about "lone purveyors of goodness and joy" it's that Republicans obviously have to go to disgusting lengths to justify their rhetoric and positions. For instance, Ablow's insanely unethical diagnoses of Obama, which was linked. Where's the liberal counterpart of that? Or Limbaugh's raging dishonesty? Or anyone as severely unhinged as LaPierre having a voice in the public debate? If you're going to talk on the subject, try figuring out what the actual subject is." So, if you did have a relevant argument to make, you could have done so. Or, if you simply thought he was generalizing (which I didn't), you could have said something like what I did in my first post. He didn't disagree with me, so obviously that wasn't his intent.

      Delete
    17. "That word "cause" is troublesome for you, now." ... No, that word has no problem being where I put it. One day, when you grow up, you'll be able to understand the complexities involved in what shapes the lives of children. Now isn't that day. You better stick to your "born that way" mantra, it works within your intelligence limits better.


      "Or Limbaugh's raging dishonesty?" ... Seriously? You're worried and/or scared about what a drug addict has to say? You think he has that much power? I guess I should have expected no less from democrats.

      "you could have said something like what I did in my first post" ... Sorry, I think for myself. I'm not a sheeple like you are. Of course you're going to agree with everything Eddie says, you're his little boy who does and thinks and speaks as told.

      Delete
    18. "One day, when you grow up, you'll be able to understand the complexities involved in what shapes the lives of children. Now isn't that day."

      What to say to that? Let's try this:"Is your only option to attack posters who point out your failures?" If you don't like that, you could act like an adult and make a specific case for how your two arguments aren't contradictory. It seems unlikely, though.

      "... Seriously? You're worried and/or scared about what a drug addict has to say?"

      What the hell does his addiction have to do with the lies and outrageous rhetoric he vomits out? Do you want to try to claim that he's irrelevant to the Republican party? Please do.

      "... Sorry, I think for myself. I'm not a sheeple like you are."

      So, pointing out that moderate Republicans aren't scum is being a "sheeple"? That makes no sense whatsoever.

      Delete
    19. "Do you want to try to claim that he's irrelevant to the Republican party?" ... He is irrelevant to me. I don't control the republican party and I don't speak for them. But, if you're going to throw that responsibility on me, that would be consistant with the way you do things. I DO notice he lies and he uses drugs (often connected). I also notice you lie and Eddie lies. Do either of you use drugs, too?

      Delete
    20. "I don't control the republican party and I don't speak for them."

      I didn't ask you to. You suggested that Limbaugh shouldn't be mentioned in this article (or anywhere, seemingly) because he's a drug addict. If that was supposed to make sense, you're not explaining how.

      "I also notice you lie and Eddie lies. Do either of you use drugs, too?"

      Another chance to do this:"Is your only option to attack posters who point out your failures?"

      Try again?

      Delete
    21. Let's also note this:

      "... He is irrelevant to me."

      Your immediate response, when someone is irrelevant to you is to dismiss any relevance they might have to anyone else. Like, say, millions of listeners plus actual members of Congress who go out of their way not to anger him.

      That seems a little egotistical. Maybe even narcissistic. It's also completely consistent with your attitude that someone "lies" whenever they disagree with your opinion.

      Seriously, you should seek treatment.

      Delete
    22. Sorry, Barbantio, I call you a liar because you have told lies and defended them. This ain't rocket science. You tell a lie you are called a liar. Simple ... no ego or attitudes involved. Simple facts.

      Delete
    23. Sorry, you have no examples. Remember, you already got smacked down on Biblical inconsistencies, and that's the only thing you've even tried to substantiate.

      Delete
    24. Biblical Inconsistencies? When are you going to bring some? Because all of them have been debunked and all you have, to defend yourself, are lies. There are no inconsistencies in the Bible. You brought a link that says there are and you vehemently defended one particular lie. I'd like to see you defend your lie or accept the consequences of being a liar.

      Delete
    25. Let me get this straight;in one post you both ask when I'm going to bring examples of Biblical inconsistencies, and mention the link that I posted which lists over a thousand Biblical inconsistencies.

      Maybe you should get cracking on "debunking" all those "lies", instead of just asserting that you can do it. That would seem fair, which is probably why you won't do it. Or, you know you can't, which is also a highly probable explanation.

      Delete
    26. I don't need to debunk what has already been debunked. Perhaps you should prove they are inconsistencies, since YOU make that claim. Why should I prove a stance YOU take? I'm simply telling you they are lies and have been proven to be, yet you want to promote those lies. Why?

      "instead of just asserting that you can do it." ... WHEN did I assert that? By saying that all those inconsistencies have already been debunked? You mean you read that as me saying I would provide complete explanations for each and every lie you bring to the conversation?

      Delete
    27. "I don't need to debunk what has already been debunked."

      You debunked a thousand inconsistencies?

      "Perhaps you should prove they are inconsistencies, since YOU make that claim."

      The website already shows the inconsistencies. You're not making it clear why I should cut and paste everything there.

      "Why should I prove a stance YOU take?"

      You claimed you debunked the inconsistencies. I'm saying you haven't, and you should make an effort. How the hell do you get to the concept of proving my stance from there?

      "I'm simply telling you they are lies and have been proven to be, yet you want to promote those lies."

      Combined with:"... WHEN did I assert that?" If they've already been debunked, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate that.

      "You mean you read that as me saying I would provide complete explanations for each and every lie you bring to the conversation?"

      Let's put it this way:I don't believe you. You can always claim that something has been proven a lie. Where's the evidence? You don't have a website, anything? There's nobody on the planet that's made the effort to counter these horrible, unholy lies? Right.

      Delete
    28. "The website already shows the inconsistencies." ... see? That's why I say you are a liar, because you blindly support a website that brings lies. You can't prove those lies other than to say that you believe them simply because they are out there and you believe them enough that you will regurgitate lies that have already been debunked even though you know they've been debunked.
      Using your premise, someone could blindly believe everything FOX news says and post on a blog site using their info to claim facts.

      "You claimed you debunked the inconsistencies." ... I did? When?

      "If they've already been debunked, then it should be easy for you to demonstrate that." ... and it will be just as easy for you to do it yourself. But you prefer to use unsubstantiated information to promote your fear of organized religion. Hey, I have no problem with the way you do things. It's not like it isn't expected from your ilk.

      Delete
    29. "That's why I say you are a liar, because you blindly support a website that brings lies."

      Planted axiom from baseless assertion. You haven't demonstrated that the website is lying. It's also not "blindly support"ing something to bring it to your attention. If you can actually debunk the inconsistencies, I'm waiting.

      "... I did? When?"

      Here:"I don't need to debunk what has already been debunked." Who are you talking about, if not yourself? On top of that:"... I've already debunked the one this main article is about. Do you think the ones in the link you brought will be any harder to debunk?" You can't very well criticize me for not forgetting that. If that's your mindset, then you do think you've debunked all of them based on the one example that I'm not even sure is included on that site.

      "... and it will be just as easy for you to do it yourself."

      Now you are asking me to prove your point. Why would I debunk the inconsistencies when it's your argument that the Bible is 100% consistent? Who did all this work? You keep asserting it's been done, but you don't bring a link?

      "But you prefer to use unsubstantiated information to promote your fear of organized religion."

      Let me get this straight. You can look at the site and see the explanations for the inconsistencies it claims. Meanwhile, you're saying they've been debunked, but when and by who is just hanging out there as a mystery. And my information is "unsubstantiated"? Hilarious.

      Also, I don't have a "fear of organized religion". It's fine for those who believe in it, and all I do is encourage people to think for themselves as much as that allows. But, of course, you feel a need to demonize people whenever they pressure you to make a reasoned argument. That's the type of Christian you are, apparently.

      Delete
    30. "You haven't demonstrated that the website is lying." ... Yes, I have.

      "Now you are asking me to prove your point. " ... I'm asking you to prove YOUR point. Prove the Bible in inconsistant ... AS YOU CLAIM.

      "Also, I don't have a "fear of organized religion"." ... Yes you do. That's why you're an atheist. What other explanation could there be?

      "That's the type of Christian you are, apparently." ... Do you even KNOW what it means to be a Christian? How can you say that without that simple knowledge? Of course you can't, but lack of knowledge never stopped you from posting, before, has it?

      Delete
    31. "... Yes, I have."

      Wrong. Even if one were to accept your interpretation of the specific verse, that's your opinion. And on top of that, as I said, I'm not even sure that specific verse is on that site. So even if you proved it was a "lie", that may not even reflect on that site at all.

      "... I'm asking you to prove YOUR point. Prove the Bible in inconsistant ... AS YOU CLAIM."

      Check the link.

      "... Yes you do. That's why you're an atheist. What other explanation could there be?"

      Because I employ logic instead of faith. You're engaging in binary thinking. It's entirely possible to not believe in a god and respect organized religion at the same time.

      "... Do you even KNOW what it means to be a Christian?"

      Yes, and it's not what you're doing.

      "Of course you can't, but lack of knowledge never stopped you from posting, before, has it?"

      I was raised Christian. You lacked that knowledge, obviously.

      Delete
    32. You brought the site into the conversation. If you didn't check it out then you are worse than a liar. You'll provide information and claim it is something, while you don't even KNOW what it is. That sounds like something democrats do often.

      "Because I employ logic instead of faith." ... unless you're talking about alternative lifestyles. Then you use made up possibilities to promote your brand of hate. How is that logical?

      "I was raised Christian." ... Yeah, sure you were. I can believe that one ... coming from a habitual lying bigot.

      Delete
    33. "If you didn't check it out then you are worse than a liar."

      Who said I didn't check it out? If you recall, I pointed out a specific section of the site that was particularly interesting.

      " ... unless you're talking about alternative lifestyles. Then you use made up possibilities to promote your brand of hate. How is that logical?"

      Changing the subject? You brought up polygamy, so the legalization of multiple marriages is a hypothetical situation. If you didn't want "made up possibilities" in the conversation, you shouldn't have brought it up. I'll keep repeating that as long as you need me to.

      " ... Yeah, sure you were. I can believe that one ... coming from a habitual lying bigot."

      Aren't you Christian? Because you've admitted that you have no problem lying as long as you claim I'm doing the same, and you proudly generalize about millions of people based on your own personal experiences. So claiming that your own faith is disqualified because of behavior that you've admitted to puts you in quite a sticky position.

      Delete
    34. Not sure if this will double-post or not...

      "If you didn't check it out then you are worse than a liar."

      Who said I didn't check it out? If you recall, I pointed out a specific section of the site that was particularly interesting.

      " ... unless you're talking about alternative lifestyles. Then you use made up possibilities to promote your brand of hate. How is that logical?"

      Changing the subject? You brought up polygamy, so the legalization of multiple marriages is a hypothetical situation. If you didn't want "made up possibilities" in the conversation, you shouldn't have brought it up. I'll keep repeating that as long as you need me to.

      " ... Yeah, sure you were. I can believe that one ... coming from a habitual lying bigot."

      Aren't you Christian? Because you've admitted that you have no problem lying as long as you claim I'm doing the same, and you proudly generalize about millions of people based on your own personal experiences. So claiming that your own faith is disqualified because of behavior that you've admitted to puts you in quite a sticky position.

      Let's also note on this very thread, you again call me a liar because I don't fit into your bigoted views. This time I must be lying about my views on organized religion because I'm an atheist. If you want to explain how that's not bigotry, I'm all ears.

      Delete
    35. "Who said I didn't check it out? If you recall, I pointed out a specific section of the site that was particularly interesting." .. Yeah, when you brought in "human nature" and whined that I didn't want to address how it is "human nature" to murder, yet I'm supposed to accept "human nature" as a reason to allow gay marriage.

      "I'll keep repeating that as long as you need me to." ... I know you will.
      Here's another definition that will fit your kind of behavior (born that way): Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
      In your case it would be "saying the same thing over and expecting different results". I thought you said the dictionary isn't my freind?

      "Aren't you Christian?" ... Yes. What "sticky postition" do you tihnk I'm in?

      "If you want to explain how that's not bigotry" ... first you need to explain how hating one group of people but loving another group of people using the SAME REASON is NOT bigotry.

      "Not sure if this will double-post or not..." ... You are not sure of MANY things.

      Delete
    36. ".. Yeah, when you brought in "human nature" and whined that I didn't want to address how it is "human nature" to murder, yet I'm supposed to accept "human nature" as a reason to allow gay marriage."

      What the hell was that, and what did it have to do with your assumption that I didn't look at the website in question? What, specifically, are you talking about either way?

      "Here's another definition that will fit your kind of behavior (born that way): Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

      Who said I expected different results? It's a strange insult on your part anyway, since I wouldn't be making the same arguments if you didn't keep making the same ones you've been making. So, by your definition, you must be insane as well.

      " ... Yes. What "sticky postition" do you tihnk I'm in?"

      You're a proud bigot and admitted liar.

      "... first you need to explain how hating one group of people but loving another group of people using the SAME REASON is NOT bigotry."

      What "group" do I supposedly hate? I don't care what polyamorists do. There's just no reason to legally sanction polygamy. Also, I'm not sure what the "SAME REASON" is supposed to be, unless you're injecting your views into my arguments again. So, considering I've already explained that to you on another thread anyway, it's your turn to explain how your generalizations aren't bigoted. I doubt you'll make an effort, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

      Delete
    37. " I don't care what polyamorists do. There's just no reason to legally sanction polygamy." ... Let's give you a quick "bigot" test.

      If I say: "I don't care what homosexuals do. There's just no reason to legally sanction gay marriage.".
      Would you consider me a bigot for that statement?

      Yes, that is also a "hypocrite" test too. You'll fail miserably then deny you failed. Just a prediction of mine.

      Delete
    38. "Would you consider me a bigot for that statement?"

      Yes, because A) polyamorists can still marry one person they love, homosexuals have no such option, and B) you haven't shown any reason not to legalize gay marriage, since every time you've claimed some sort of legal problem or change required, you've refused to substantiate it in any way whatsoever.

      Opposing changing the legal framework of marriage is not hating a group. Opposing homosexuality entirely because the Bible and the FRC tell you to is bigoted. Note the minor difference involved.

      Delete
    39. "Opposing homosexuality entirely because the Bible and the FRC tell you to is bigoted." ... I don't oppose homosexuality because the FRC tells me to. That's what I mean about you just making shit up. That is called lying, in case you don't know (which you apparently don't).

      "Yes, ... " ... That's what I thought. You are admitting you are a bigot because you admit saying a statement such as yours would amount to being a bigot. Because: A) homosexuals can marry who they want, while polygamists cannot. B) you haven't shown any non-bigoted reason NOT to legalize polygamy.

      You see, 2 can play that game. However, I do mine honestly. You do NOT. You LIE. Homosexuals CAN get married to whoever they want. You are lying in your statement. AGAIN.

      Delete
    40. "... I don't oppose homosexuality because the FRC tells me to. That's what I mean about you just making shit up."

      You didn't use the FRC's "research" to justify your views on homosexuality? Was that a different "anonymous" that cited their propaganda as fact which you obviously believed?

      "... That's what I thought. You are admitting you are a bigot because you admit saying a statement such as yours would amount to being a bigot. Because: A) homosexuals can marry who they want, while polygamists cannot. B) you haven't shown any non-bigoted reason NOT to legalize polygamy."

      No, because different concepts are evaluated differently. So it's not "a statement such as" mine. As for your "because" points, A)you've said yourself gay marriage is illegal, so how can homosexuals "marry who they want"?, and B)you haven't shown how anything I've said is bigoted (note the first sentence in this paragraph for a clue).

      Delete
    41. "You didn't use the FRC's "research" to justify your views on homosexuality?" .. No. I have never used the FRC to "justify" my views. Maybe you ARE thinking of a different anonymous.

      " A)you've said yourself gay marriage is illegal, so how can homosexuals "marry who they want"?," ... Were you born stupid or learn it during your "formative years"? Gay marriage IS illegal ... federally. It is legal in some states. Are you a complete moron that you don't know that? Or just being contridictory because you are a democrat?

      So, you admit to being a bigot. Good for you.

      Delete
    42. ".. No. I have never used the FRC to "justify" my views."

      So, this wasn't you?:http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/01/great.html?showComment=1360589607490#c8124377161216158959

      That's interesting. Because the whole start for all of these polygamy threads was me replying to you when you said that only a moron would claim there's no harm from homosexuality, which ties directly to that very post, where you (not you?) were using the FRC to "prove" harm. So, apparently there's two "anonymous" posters who argue in the same style, notably the use of ellipses to start a comment, while you didn't find it odd at all that I was talking to you out of nowhere.

      And especially considering this line:"... that has been answered several times already." That was from your first response to me on the "complicated" thread. "Several times"? Where had you answered them before, along with the other "anonymous" on the "great" thread? There's two of you, but neither of you thinks to clarify that or change a name to fix that problem? And if that's not the case, where did this supposed changing of the guard take place, precisely?

      "Gay marriage IS illegal ... federally."

      Then why have you been saying it's illegal, without that qualifier? (http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/03/remember-my-republicans-are-scum-post.html?showComment=1363067555644#c5487121632175916561) Note that's what I said, that you said that, therefore it made no sense for you to claim homosexuals could marry who they wanted. But, since you've finally admitted that gay marriage is legal in some places, it should be extraordinarily easy for you to demonstrate all the legal problems they've had in those states resulting from that change.

      "So, you admit to being a bigot. Good for you."

      Wrong. Note the point directly above, and also my argument "B" a few posts back. The two comments from your "test" are not sufficiently analogous, no matter how much you insist they are.

      Delete
    43. "So, this wasn't you?" ... I posted during that article. Do you have a particular post that you are concerned about? However, I can calmly and honestly assure you that I have NEVER used the FRC to "justify" my views. You got something where I "justify" MY VIEWS using the FRC? Or do you only have a medical review of sexual perversions?

      "Then why have you been saying it's illegal, without that qualifier?" ... Because I've never needed a qualifier until your stupidity brought it on.

      " it should be extraordinarily easy for you to demonstrate all the legal problems they've had in those states resulting from that change." ... It is easy. Just look at all the court cases STILL going on because of gay marriage issues. Even in the legal states, you still have a congestion of the court system. Which is your main concern about legalizing polygamy. Which is the CONTEXT of that discussion and one you still haven't been able to fully substantiate. Or even partially. You just continue to be a hypocrite. Nothing new under the sun

      "Wrong." ... You are floundering so bad, it must be really embarrassing to be you and posting on this site. That must be why no one else is helping you out. Because you look like a doofus with your dodging and lying and floundering. Too bad you never consider discussing honestly.

      Delete
    44. "Do you have a particular post that you are concerned about?"

      Besides the one that I linked to?

      "However, I can calmly and honestly assure you that I have NEVER used the FRC to "justify" my views."

      So, you're not denying citing the FRC as much as you're parsing the word "justify". Is that right?

      "... Because I've never needed a qualifier until your stupidity brought it on."

      Was that supposed to make sense?

      " ... It is easy. Just look at all the court cases STILL going on because of gay marriage issues. Even in the legal states, you still have a congestion of the court system."

      Evidence? Since your specifying states now, your google search is even less compelling.

      "Which is the CONTEXT of that discussion and one you still haven't been able to fully substantiate."

      You keep harping on "CONTEXT", but never using it correctly. William did the same thing, oddly enough. And again, when you explain how to substantiate a hypothetical, you let me know.

      "... You are floundering so bad, it must be really embarrassing to be you and posting on this site."

      Does your little screed address what I wrote? No? Then I'm not impressed by your trash talk.

      Delete
    45. "Besides the one that I linked to?" .. You linked to the entire article. Do you know how to link the individual post?

      "Was that supposed to make sense?" ... Yes. But, I don't expect YOU to understand it. Why would you start understanding what is written all of a sudden when you haven't before now?

      "So, you're not denying citing the FRC as much as you're parsing the word "justify". Is that right?" ... You claimed I used the FRC to "justify my position on homosexuality". Bring the proof of that. Bring anything that shows I used the FRC to "JUSTIFY" my position on homosexuality.

      "Does your little screed address what I wrote? No? Then I'm not impressed by your trash talk." ... Yes, you are. Or you wouldn't continue responding and defending your bigoted actions and statements.

      Delete
    46. ".. You linked to the entire article."

      This is what I posted: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/01/great.html?showComment=1360589607490#c8124377161216158959 If that's not taking you to the individual post, your browser is broken or you're doing something wrong. It works for me.

      "... Yes."

      While you don't explain how, as always.

      "Bring the proof of that."

      What definition of the word "justify" are you using?

      "... Yes, you are. Or you wouldn't continue responding and defending your bigoted actions and statements."

      Alternate theory:my actions and statements are defensible. If I gave up, it make a better argument that I could no longer defend them. Your concept of logic fails, yet again.

      Delete
    47. And where's the evidence of court clogging in states that have approved gay marriage? It's your claim, but you won't substantiate it?

      Delete
    48. Above should be "it would make a better argument..." This computer is difficult to edit with.

      Delete
    49. " This computer is difficult to edit with." ... You shouldn't be using government equipment to do personal business then. That is called "ILLEGAL" in the US for government employees to use government equipment for personal business. I didn't think you were an honest person. You 'sliding scale' morals first showed me that, then your continued lack of intelligence furthered that, then your inability to discuss honestly completed it.

      Delete
    50. "That is called "ILLEGAL" in the US for government employees to use government equipment for personal business."

      Apparently you aren't familiar with the acronym "MWR". Thanks for that, that was a good, solid laugh at your expense. Got any other nuggets of ignorance you'd like to amuse me with?

      Delete
    51. Ahh, so it's GOOD for morale when you government employees steal from the government? Times (and morals) sure have changed since I was in the Army.

      "Got any other nuggets of ignorance you'd like to amuse me with?" ... Just one: legalizing gay marriage will open the door for uncontrolled abuse of government programs and cost taxpayers a lot of money that could have been used to feed the hungry or house the homeless. All because of "human nature".

      Delete
    52. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    53. "Ahh, so it's GOOD for morale when you government employees steal from the government?"

      What does stealing have to do with anything, and what would possibly be wrong with using computers that are provided for personal use?

      " ... Just one: legalizing gay marriage will open the door for uncontrolled abuse of government programs and cost taxpayers a lot of money that could have been used to feed the hungry or house the homeless. All because of "human nature"."

      That will make sense when you explain what government programs apply to gay couples and not straight ones. Now, you might want to start checking UCMJ so you can specify exactly what I'm supposedly violating. Good luck.

      Delete
    54. "That will make sense when you explain what government programs apply to gay couples and not straight ones." ... Aren't you the one who is whining about "NEW" cases that the polygamist will cause if they get legalized marriage rights? Well, ANY government program that pays to the newly legalized gay marriage rights would be "NEW" cases. God, you can't even follow your own arguments. Why do you bother?

      "Now, you might want to start checking UCMJ so you can specify exactly what I'm supposedly violating." ... It doesn't matter "WHAT" law you are breaking. You admitted you ARE breaking laws because you say it IS human nature to do that. You ARE human aren't you?

      Delete
    55. "... Aren't you the one who is whining about "NEW" cases that the polygamist will cause if they get legalized marriage rights? Well, ANY government program that pays to the newly legalized gay marriage rights would be "NEW" cases."

      But if everyone was straight, then everyone would be entitled to those benefits. So, somehow, you're drawing a line regarding how many people are allowed to get rights and benefits, based off of a population that you claim is making a "choice".

      "... It doesn't matter "WHAT" law you are breaking."

      It does when you accuse me of stealing from the government. That's pretty specific.

      "You admitted you ARE breaking laws because you say it IS human nature to do that."

      You're suffering from a severe case of binary thinking. When you're talking about the population of the country, you take human nature into account because some people will do the wrong thing. I think, perhaps, the words "some" and "many" have even come up in this conversation, which would have made this clear to anyone with an IQ over 30 already. It's not all or nothing, where either everyone is a crook or everyone is a saint, and you can't find anything I've said that suggests such a thing.

      But, thanks for admitting that your accusations were baseless. That's a great relief to me, that I won't be investigated for using the computers provided for personal use, now.

      Delete
    56. "It does when you accuse me of stealing from the government." ... I not only accuse you, you admit as much when you use "human nature" as your reason why people scam the system. If it's "human nature" to break the law, then you do it too.

      "It's not all or nothing, where either everyone is a crook or everyone is a saint, and you can't find anything I've said that suggests such a thing." ... Actually, you've said so many polygamists will scam our government that it "can't be reined in". That certainly sounds like you are saying ALL polygamists will be crooks. You, at least, "suggest it" with that statement.

      Delete
    57. "... I not only accuse you, you admit as much when you use "human nature" as your reason why people scam the system. If it's "human nature" to break the law, then you do it too."

      No, because "human nature" doesn't mean that everyone does it for every possible thing you could randomly think of at any time. Further, you can't even explain what the theft would actually entail. By your logic, anyone who talks about "human nature" can be convicted of anything that you feel like accusing them of. Would you really like to keep digging this hole of yours?

      "... Actually, you've said so many polygamists will scam our government that it "can't be reined in". That certainly sounds like you are saying ALL polygamists will be crooks. You, at least, "suggest it" with that statement."

      Actually, my point has always been that people will become polygamists even though they have no interest in polyamory. So that really has nothing to do with "ALL polygamists". Your willful misinterpretation does not constitute a suggestion on my part, sorry.

      Delete
    58. "No, because "human nature" doesn't mean that everyone does it for every possible thing you could randomly think of at any time." ... Oh? Why don't you fully explain what "human nature" is that gives you the ability to apply it to polygamists but not apply it to homosexuals. And it most certainly NEVER applies to you, as you insist. You are perfect and commit no crimes, right? I've never seen a democrat admit ANY type of failure. They all seem to have issues with "pride" so much that they never admit making a mistake. That must be why you chose atheism, so you don't ever have to admit you are wrong.

      "Actually, my point has always been that people will become polygamists even though they have no interest in polyamory." ... I'll take that as an admitting that you did "suggest it". My interpretation isn't needed. You admit you "suggest it" when you say your point was something else. That is admitting that what you said 'could' be taken another way, but your point was something else.
      And, saying people will "become" polygamists (is that the same as "choose"?) simply to scam the system is a little retarded. I guess I have to consider the source before I whine about retarded people.
      That would be like saying people who are not gay will choose to be gay just to scam the system through gay marriage. (Can anyone say 'short bus' again) Umm you DO realize you are the one who says sexual perverts are "born that way" (without any evidence, as usual). How can people "choose" to be polygamists, if they have to be born that way? Would the government have an easy test to determine if someone is gay or polyamorous? Because if you're going to deny rights to people who are born that way, you should be considered a republican. Wow, what a position to be put in: you refuse to use evidence to support your position (like a democrat) AND you want to deny marriage rights to a sexual deviance (republican). You are the best of both worlds. That's what proves you are a bigot. Having the same ideals as republicans makes you a bigot. Having the same ideals as a democrat makes you a hypocrite.

      Delete
    59. "... Oh? Why don't you fully explain what "human nature" is that gives you the ability to apply it to polygamists but not apply it to homosexuals."

      I never said it didn't apply to homosexuals. And did that address my point? It doesn't seem so.

      "And it most certainly NEVER applies to you, as you insist."

      So, because I deny "stealing" from the government because I'm using a computer that's specified for personal usage, then I "insist" that I never do anything wrong? I'd love to see you explain how you reached that conclusion.

      "That must be why you chose atheism, so you don't ever have to admit you are wrong."

      That makes no sense whatsoever.

      "... I'll take that as an admitting that you did "suggest it"."

      That also makes no sense. Your interpretation is wrong, therefore I'm "admitting" to the charge that's based off of your interpretation?

      "That is admitting that what you said 'could' be taken another way, but your point was something else."

      I never suggested your interpretation was reasonable. You "could" interpret any quote as anything, that doesn't reflect on my meaning at all. I'm also not seeing the word "could" in my post, while you put it in quotes.

      "That would be like saying people who are not gay will choose to be gay just to scam the system through gay marriage."

      Except there's no benefit that exists that doesn't already exist for straight marriage. Ergo, there's no reason to "choose" to be gay to enter a gay marriage when a straight marriage works exactly the same. So it's not at all like talking about polygamy, where one could (and you yourself said you had no reason to limit polygamy) marry any number of people in order to give them benefits. Try again?

      "Umm you DO realize you are the one who says sexual perverts are "born that way" (without any evidence, as usual)."

      No, you say "born that way".

      "How can people "choose" to be polygamists, if they have to be born that way?"

      Besides saying again that "born that way" is your quote, not mine, it would work the same way any other marriage of convenience would work. As in, you're not genuinely attracted to someone, but they're paying you to help them get citizenship. It's called "pretending". Also note the difference between "polygamy" and "polyamory". Someone would be pretending to be a polyamorist. Polygamist would be a legal definition.

      "Because if you're going to deny rights to people who are born that way, you should be considered a republican."

      Someone could argue that pedophilia isn't a choice, but it's not relevant. "Born that way" (your phrase, yet again) is not the only factor.

      "Having the same ideals as republicans makes you a bigot. Having the same ideals as a democrat makes you a hypocrite."

      You must have an interesting view of independents from your little binary world.

      Delete
    60. "So, because I deny "stealing" from the government because I'm using a computer that's specified for personal usage, then I "insist" that I never do anything wrong? I'd love to see you explain how you reached that conclusion." ... I never made a claim as to what law you were breaking. I simply said you are breaking a law, then you told us what law you were breaking. Why are you asking me to explain why the law you admit breaking shouldn't apply to you?

      "I'm also not seeing the word "could" in my post, while you put it in quotes." ... I did NOT. I've been saying you have a reading comprehension problem. This simply proves it. Do you even KNOW what "quotation" marks are? Quotation marks are these things: " " " " " " " . NOT these things: ' ' ' ' ' ' . Do you need more help reading?

      "Someone could argue that pedophilia isn't a choice, but it's not relevant." ... And, apparently, that "someone" is YOU. Are you changing the subject, yet again?

      "You must have an interesting view of independents from your little binary world." ... At least in MY WORLD we put a higher priority on honesty than occurs in your world.

      So, another article ends with you whining and continuing to avoid answering questions and changing the subject when asked the tough questions.

      Good job, little one. When you get a higher education, you can try keeping up with me in a conversation. Until then, you're just a child compared to my superior intellect. And it shows in your posting abilities.

      Delete
    61. "... I never made a claim as to what law you were breaking. I simply said you are breaking a law, then you told us what law you were breaking."

      First off, that didn't answer the question. Besides that, it doesn't make any sense to accuse me of doing something "illegal" by using one of these computers if you don't have a specific charge in mind. Why would you think it was "illegal" if you had no concept of what article I was violating, or how? You are, at best, admitting that you're making things up as you go along.

      "... I did NOT. I've been saying you have a reading comprehension problem. This simply proves it. Do you even KNOW what "quotation" marks are? Quotation marks are these things: " " " " " " " . NOT these things: ' ' ' ' ' '"

      No, they're different types of quotation marks. Single vs. double. If they're not supposed to be quotation marks, then why are they surrounding a word? Are they supposed to indicate invisible contractions at both ends, or what?

      "... And, apparently, that "someone" is YOU. Are you changing the subject, yet again?"

      I don't care whether pedophilia is a choice or not. It's not changing the subject to point out that "choice" is not the only factor, while you pretend that it is ("Because if you're going to deny rights to people who are born that way...").

      "... At least in MY WORLD we put a higher priority on honesty than occurs in your world."

      Right, that's why you claimed that I live in New York and am somehow violating UCMJ. That's sarcasm, in case you feel like cropping the quote

      "So, another article ends with you whining and continuing to avoid answering questions and changing the subject when asked the tough questions."

      You didn't cite any questions I avoided. I notice that you didn't address the point about how there's no motivation to enter a gay marriage as opposed to a straight one, while there is motivation to enter a polygamous marriage, though. And, as noted, you didn't explain your reasoning for claiming I believe I never do anything wrong, based merely on your insane accusations.

      As always, your criticisms apply to you, not me.

      Delete
    62. "No, they're different types of quotation marks. Single vs. double." .... 8, 9 or 10? How old are you? Maybe you get to apostrophes next year in 5th grade?

      "I don't care whether pedophilia is a choice or not." ... So, you're saying you weren't born that way? You are saying that you chose pedophilia? Wow, what a revelation. Not unexpected though, from the way you act about sexual perversions.

      "Right, that's why you claimed that I live in New York and am somehow violating UCMJ. " ... Well, you HAVE ADMITTED violating the UCMJ. Why can't I accuse you of it? Are you having trouble understanding what you say along with what I say? Your ilk are all alike.

      "As always, your criticisms apply to you, not me." .... Ah, the old I'm a mirror trick. I take it back, you must be closer to 6 or 7. Nobody with any intelligence would use that old phrase but a child.

      Always remember, when you get smarter, you can discuss on my level. Right now, you are at the kitty cat chasing the laser beam level. You are quite the simpleton, why does Eddie even let you post on his site. He's already admonished you once for dissing his articles. Maybe that's why no one else is posting, you are embarrassing them all. Don't worry, though, I won't think any less of you for being such a simpleton. As if I could.

      Delete
    63. "Maybe you get to apostrophes next year in 5th grade?"

      Except I asked you how they could be apostrophes, and you didn't answer. You lose.

      "... So, you're saying you weren't born that way? You are saying that you chose pedophilia?"

      Is your only option to attack those who point out the flaws in your argument?

      "... Well, you HAVE ADMITTED violating the UCMJ."

      That's a lie.

      ".... Ah, the old I'm a mirror trick. I take it back, you must be closer to 6 or 7. Nobody with any intelligence would use that old phrase but a child."

      Your behavior warrants my phrasing (which wasn't "I'm a mirror"). If you have a problem with that, behave better.

      Delete
    64. "Except I asked you how they could be apostrophes, and you didn't answer. You lose." ... You did? Would that be considered a LIE? Since you've never even mentioned the word apostrophe? That would be why I didn't answer you, you never asked. I think that means you lose (again). My superier intallect outshiens your darkness again ;)

      "Is your only option to attack those who point out the flaws in your argument?" ... I'm not here to have my argument dissected by children who refuse to answer the damn questions. So, I'll do whatever I want to show how dishonest and childish you are. I would say you are acting that way, but your ilk always "acts" this way. So, I don't think your childishness is an act. When you have the mind of a child, you will act like a child.

      "That's a lie." ... No it isn't. And, unfortunately for you, you know it.

      "If you have a problem with that, behave better." ... If you have a problem with the world knowing you are a child, then start answering the questions that are asked of you instead of acting like a child.

      Delete
    65. "Would that be considered a LIE? Since you've never even mentioned the word apostrophe?"

      No, because I don't have to use the word "apostrophe" to ask how you could be using them that way.

      "So, I'll do whatever I want to show how dishonest and childish you are."

      So, your vile comments are supposed to "show" something about me? That's quite the trick.

      "... No it isn't. And, unfortunately for you, you know it."

      Sorry, you're not fooling anyone but yourself. Your assertions don't magically become reality.

      "... If you have a problem with the world knowing you are a child, then start answering the questions that are asked of you instead of acting like a child."

      If you have a valid question, ask it. Let's see what you're whining about.

      Delete
    66. "That's quite the trick." ... Yes, just like Jesus would do.

      "If you have a valid question, ask it." ... Valid? What would you know about valid? You have a hard time figuring out what a quotation mark is. How are you going to figure out what a valid question is? You're just giving yet another excuse to run from the questions that are asked of you. Being a democratic atheist gives you that ability. You can make all kinds of bigoted racist claims and never have to answer for them. Must be nice not having to worry about personal accountability. Valid ... what a doofus you are.

      Delete
    67. "... Yes, just like Jesus would do."

      Now you really think you're Jesus? Interesting.

      "... Valid? What would you know about valid? You have a hard time figuring out what a quotation mark is."

      So, you have no valid questions, then.

      Delete
    68. "Now you really think you're Jesus? Interesting." ... Christ-like. Something you wouldn't understand with your morals that shift according to what's popular.

      "So, you have no valid questions, then." ... I have plenty of them. You just seem to ignore them and refuse to answer them. How about you? You got anything new? Because all your other points have been shot down with you whining constantly.

      Delete
    69. "... Christ-like. Something you wouldn't understand with your morals that shift according to what's popular."

      Is making baseless assertions moral? You've never been able to show any shift in my morals. And if you think you can really change the rules of logic and reason, you're insane.

      "... I have plenty of them. You just seem to ignore them and refuse to answer them."

      Yet, you don't explain what they are. I have to take that as meaning you don't really have any valid questions.

      "You got anything new?"

      You're the one who's been accusing me this entire time, jackass. I don't need to have anything new. The onus is on you.

      Delete
    70. "Is making baseless assertions moral?" ... No, but making true ones is.

      "You're the one who's been accusing me this entire time, jackass." ... Yes, accusing you of being a bigot and a hypocrite and a liar. You haven't been able to prove ANY of those accusations incorrect, yet.

      Delete
    71. "... No, but making true ones is."

      Note the continued lack of basis.

      "... Yes, accusing you of being a bigot and a hypocrite and a liar. You haven't been able to prove ANY of those accusations incorrect, yet."

      The onus is on you. I've explained my position, you haven't been able to show...at all...how it could possibly be construed as bigoted or hypocritical. All you do is say two "sexual perversions" are the same, therefore I have to treat them the same. It's idiotic. It's childish, it's absurd, and it's out of pure spite because I wouldn't allow your slippery slope argument to fly. You have no argument. If anything's happened here, you've proven that anything you say about me, at any point, is invalid, because of your insanely vindictive, vile and bizarre behavior on these threads.

      Let's note, yet again, that I ask you what your questions are, and you punt. You know you're full of shit, or you'd ask the questions. You're obviously not an objective judge of anything here, so expecting me to prove that your accusations are incorrect is flat-out retarded. It's not possible, because you won't accept anything that's inconvenient to your argument. You've made this more than abundantly clear.

      Anything else?

      Delete
    72. " I've explained my position," ... Yeah, bent over taking it in your ars.

      "Anything else?" ... What? You want me to ream you yet another one?

      Delete
    73. I wonder why your mind leaps to homosexual imagery so easily.

      I also love the reaction to "you have no argument" with middle-school-level trash talk. You couldn't prove me right more effectively if you admitted it outright.

      Have a nice day, then.

      Delete
    74. "I also love the reaction to "you have no argument" with middle-school-level trash talk." ... Oh. Sorry I went over your educational level. I'll try to keep my trash-talking closer to the 3rd grade level, so you understand it.

      Delete
    75. No matter how many opportunities you have to show that you do have something meaningful to say, you instead provide juvenile nonsense. I wonder why...

      Anything else?

      Delete
    76. What else can I say? You deny all the facts and bring only your opinion. You never substantiate your statements with proof claiming you're not required while others are. You change the subject when the question gets to tough and you lie throughout conversations.

      So, no, if that's how you are going to act, there is nothing else. When you get a higher education I'll be glad to discuss with you. But it really isn't any fun arguing with someone with an apparent education level of a 7 year old.

      Delete
    77. "You deny all the facts and bring only your opinion."

      That is hilarious, coming from the clown who says he can dictate reality.

      "You never substantiate your statements with proof claiming you're not required while others are."

      You demand proof of hypothetical scenarios.

      "You change the subject when the question gets to tough and you lie throughout conversations."

      That's never happened. Everything I've said relates to the arguments you've made. You just don't like it when I point out your lack of reason, so you have to find a reason to attack. "Change the subject" is just part of your repertoire.

      "So, no, if that's how you are going to act, there is nothing else."

      So, while you attack me for being juvenile, you continue to ignore my requests for a substantive argument from you.

      And that simply speaks volumes about you.

      Have a nice day, again.

      Delete
    78. "You demand proof of hypothetical scenarios." ... Aren't you in the middle of telling me that the "hundreds" number for polygamy problems is WRONG? But you refuse to bring the number that correlates with YOUR hypothetical? How can my number be WRONG if proving a hypothetical isn't possible? Why can't my number be just as hypothetical as the number you refuse to bring?

      Delete
    79. "... Aren't you in the middle of telling me that the "hundreds" number for polygamy problems is WRONG?"

      Did I say "wrong"? No, I think it's unlikely and self-serving, and you haven't explained what makes you think it's reasonable.

      "But you refuse to bring the number that correlates with YOUR hypothetical?"

      You agreed it wasn't quantifiable. I can point that out as long as you need me to.

      "How can my number be WRONG if proving a hypothetical isn't possible? Why can't my number be just as hypothetical as the number you refuse to bring?"

      It can be unreasonable based on common sense, even if the actual number can't be estimated. For instance, if you were to look at the hypothetical of people writing their own welfare checks (not requesting funds, as you so stupidly conflated earlier), it wouldn't be reasonable to say that only fifty or so people would abuse that opportunity. You have no idea how many people would do it, but at the same time there are some estimates that are so outlandish that they can safely be dismissed.

      Do you have an argument against any of that?

      Delete
    80. "It can be unreasonable based on common sense, even if the actual number can't be estimated." ... What the hell do you know about "common sense"? You're a democrat aren't you?

      "You have no idea how many people would do it, but at the same time there are some estimates that are so outlandish that they can safely be dismissed." ... Yes. And, we can safely dismiss your hypothetical FEAR of polygamy. Since it is completely outlandish without some kind of reasonable estimation. Which you fail to bring. Maybe my guess is on the low side, maybe it's on the high side. At least I brought an estimation. When are you going to do the same? Maybe I shouldn't ask that. You will probably continue to use your irrational fear of polygamy to continue your bigoted stance on marriage rights for another sexual perversion.

      "Did I say "wrong"? No, I think it's unlikely and self-serving, and you haven't explained what makes you think it's reasonable." ... No, you didn't "say" wrong. You certainly implied it. BTW, I did fully explain my stance. Go back and read.

      "You agreed it wasn't quantifiable. I can point that out as long as you need me to." ... Yes, do that.

      Delete
    81. "... What the hell do you know about "common sense"? You're a democrat aren't you?"

      It's useful to note that your first response is a generalization. Why do you do that?

      "... Yes. And, we can safely dismiss your hypothetical FEAR of polygamy. Since it is completely outlandish without some kind of reasonable estimation."

      You haven't explained what's "outlandish" about the idea that people will exploit loopholes for personal gain.

      "At least I brought an estimation. When are you going to do the same?"

      Never, because it's absolutely not necessary (and you've failed to explain otherwise, even when asked), and you said it's not quantifiable. Ergo, your demand for numbers is simply a desperate attempt to stay above water.

      "... No, you didn't "say" wrong. You certainly implied it."

      And you make it sound as if I was making a statement of fact. Which is why I corrected you.

      "BTW, I did fully explain my stance. Go back and read."

      Really? You explained why you thought fifty people would engage in polygamy? "Fully"? Provide a link.

      "... Yes, do that."

      I will. And I note that when given the opportunity to deny it, you did not.

      Delete
    82. "Why do you do that?" ... Because it is accurate.

      "You haven't explained what's "outlandish" about the idea that people will exploit loopholes for personal gain." ... And you haven't explained why you support straight marriages when they will do the same thing as everyone else.

      "And you make it sound as if I was making a statement of fact. Which is why I corrected you." ... Well, here's your chance to answer for your correction. Or avoid it again.

      "Really? You explained why you thought fifty people would engage in polygamy? "Fully"? Provide a link." ... http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/ Read brother.

      Delete
    83. "... Because it is accurate."

      You're proud of your bigotry, yet you spend weeks angrily lashing out at me for supposedly being a bigot. Got it.

      "... And you haven't explained why you support straight marriages when they will do the same thing as everyone else."

      First off, you're admitting your failure to explain what's "outlandish" about people exploiting loopholes. Secondly, I have explained why I support straight marriage. It has a valid legal purpose, because a societal one.

      "Well, here's your chance to answer for your correction. Or avoid it again."

      What, specifically, are you looking for now? I addressed everything you said.

      "... http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/ Read brother."

      Your lack of a link to one of your own posts suggests you know you're full of shit.

      Delete
    84. "Your lack of a link to one of your own posts suggests you know you're full of shit." ... No, it means I don't plan on doing work for you. Do your own work.

      Delete
    85. No thanks. I'll just go with my previous stand that you never explained yourself. You demand citations from where you brought up a hypothetical situation, yet you won't provide a useful link to support your own claims. Something to bear in mind, particularly when you make comments about childishness.

      Delete
    86. "You demand citations from where you brought up a hypothetical situation, yet you won't provide a useful link to support your own claims." ... Yeah, but you never provided one. Why should I?

      Delete
    87. "... Yeah, but you never provided one. Why should I?"

      Yes, I did, by giving you a link to your introduction of polygamy. Is polygamy currently legal? No? Then it's a hypothetical situation.

      You should also back up your own claims, instead of telling lies about my behavior.

      Delete
    88. "Then it's a hypothetical situation." ... So is gay marriage in the context of federal laws that you now say you have been talking about all this time. You can't say the lawsuits will end if gay marriage is legalized since it is completely hypothetical. Obviously, the state laws haven't been able to do that, but, for some reason, you think they would federally. What IS that reason?

      Delete
    89. "You can't say the lawsuits will end if gay marriage is legalized since it is completely hypothetical."

      I've asked you to explain how you think otherwise, since what you've cited involves people fighting for rights. Once those rights are established, you expect what further action to happen? I can say quite easily that lawsuits will end, because it's a reasonable conclusion.

      "Obviously, the state laws haven't been able to do that, but, for some reason, you think they would federally. What IS that reason?"

      You yourself pointed to Massachusetts and people from other states trying to get those rights. If it's federally legalized, then who's going to be making those subsequent inquiries?

      Here's what I replied on the other thread to your argument, and you didn't respond with anything relevant or even sensible: "Federal laws always trump state law. What exactly are you saying is supposed to happen here? It's ruled unconstitutional to discriminate against gay couples, but states are going to be able to ban those marriages anyway? Why would anyone do that, knowing the SCOTUS would strike them down in an instant? Is there some range of gay marriage that's supposed to apply, like there is for abortion? Please clarify."

      So, by all means, pursue that if you like. But you instead go off on a bizarre tangent about hypothetical situations when I never suggested that they were a problem for me at all. You're the one who's been whining about the lack of numbers involved, hence the point about you bringing up the hypothetical situation. I don't care about something being hypothetical for the purposes of discussion. I never said there weren't reasonable conclusions to be drawn from them. Let's see you try to engage in an honest argument, now that's been made clear to you.

      Delete
    90. "I can say quite easily that lawsuits will end, because it's a reasonable conclusion." ... Then why haven't they ended in the states where gay marriage is legal? So much for your "reasonable conclusion".

      Delete
    91. "... Then why haven't they ended in the states where gay marriage is legal?"

      I'll ask again:"Once those rights are established, you expect what further action to happen?"

      And:"You yourself pointed to Massachusetts and people from other states trying to get those rights. If it's federally legalized, then who's going to be making those subsequent inquiries?"

      I'll also point out that the timeline you provided for Massachusetts showed nothing for the last five years. If there's supposed to be some further cause for lawsuits, why did they seem to end five years ago?

      Maybe you'll see these things if I post them enough times for you. If you're still having difficulty, I'll be glad to copy and paste again.

      Delete
    92. " If there's supposed to be some further cause for lawsuits, why did they seem to end five years ago?" ... So you bring an isolated (unproven) case to demonstrate that it will be the norm? Hmm, it seems to me that if you look at the 'big picture' the continuing cases clogging up the court system in every state is more realistic than using a 1/50 chance.

      "Once those rights are established, you expect what further action to happen?" ... As previously stated, what will further happen is the continuing of what IS happening now (during legal gay marriage).

      Delete
    93. "... So you bring an isolated (unproven) case to demonstrate that it will be the norm?"

      Wouldn't that just as well apply to you bringing up Massachusetts to claim that there would be further lawsuits? It's your example, remember? Besides that, you're telling me that it's some sort of anomaly that there's supposed to be some steady means of lawsuits, but not one person in the state has brought one in five years? It seems a tad unlikely.

      "... As previously stated, what will further happen is the continuing of what IS happening now (during legal gay marriage)."

      That made no sense at all. Could you clarify?

      Delete
    94. "Wouldn't that just as well apply to you bringing up Massachusetts to claim that there would be further lawsuits?" ... No. That is not the same, since I was bringing proof of continued costs caused by gay marriage AFTER it was legalized and Massachusetts was one of all the other states that showed that continued cost. You SAY those costs stopped, but haven't actually proven it, yet. That IS the way you do things, right? So I don't expect you to bring any proof of what you claim.

      "That made no sense at all." ... I makes sense to an intelligent person. That may be why you don't get it.

      Delete
    95. "... No. That is not the same, since I was bringing proof of continued costs caused by gay marriage AFTER it was legalized and Massachusetts was one of all the other states that showed that continued cost."

      What the hell do you think that has to do with isolated cases being brought as if they'd be the norm? Buy a map.

      "You SAY those costs stopped, but haven't actually proven it, yet."

      According to your link, there were no further cases on the timeline. Don't like it? Get a better link.

      "... I [sic] makes sense to an intelligent person."

      Yet, you're not bright enough to explain it. Funny how that works.

      Delete
    96. "According to your link, there were no further cases on the timeline. Don't like it? Get a better link." ... I don't like it and I expect you to prove what you say. If you can't then I would not be surprised, since you haven't felt the urge to prove anything you've said as fact. Of course, "urge" isn't the accurate word, the more accurate word would be "intelligence". That would be why you never bring any proof of your statements.

      "Yet, you're not bright enough to explain it. Funny how that works." ... But I (and every other intelligent person out there) understand it. Funny how that works.

      Delete
    97. "... I don't like it and I expect you to prove what you say."

      I'm going off of the "evidence" you provided. Are you disputing your own link?

      "... But I (and every other intelligent person out there) understand it."

      Then you should be able to explain it. Yet, you can't.

      Delete
    98. "I'm going off of the "evidence" you provided." ... Of course you are. Nobody expects you to use your own smarts. Do you ever do your own work? Wait, you're an old atheist in the army, you certainly DON'T do your own work.

      "Yet, you can't." ... I can. I just don't. Slight difference that I DON'T expect you to understand.

      Delete
    99. "... Of course you are. Nobody expects you to use your own smarts."

      Right, I'm absolutely convinced that if I found some other source, you wouldn't criticize me for that. You brought the link. I used it against you. Get over it.

      "Wait, you're an old atheist in the army, you certainly DON'T do your own work."

      Who else would do my work in the Army? You're just throwing random words together now.

      "... I can. I just don't."

      Sorry, no. Until you prove otherwise, you can't. That's because there's nothing preventing you from explaining yourself. I didn't even ask you rudely, as if you could even use that as an excuse. So, since you have absolutely no reason to choose not to do it, I have to conclude that you can't.

      And I'll bet you can't explain how that's in any way unfair to you.

      Delete
    100. "Right, I'm absolutely convinced that if I found some other source, you wouldn't criticize me for that. You brought the link. I used it against you. Get over it." ... You didn't use it against me, you simple made shit up again. Where in that link did it say that all court cases ceased 5 years ago. Bring your proof, even if you have to use someone else's link. I surely don't expect you to actually DO that, but it is fun asking.

      "Sorry, no. Until you prove otherwise, you can't." ... Sorry, yes, I do as I please. Not as you please.

      Delete
    101. "... You didn't use it against me, you simple made shit up again. Where in that link did it say that all court cases ceased 5 years ago."

      Why is there nothing on the timeline for those five years, if legal action has been taking place?

      "Bring your proof, even if you have to use someone else's link."

      So you want me to find evidence of a lack of court activity regarding your evidence? Perhaps you should try to defend your own point, considering it would be much easier to prove court action than the lack thereof. Also considering it's your argument.

      "... Sorry, yes, I do as I please. Not as you please."

      I didn't say otherwise. I'm simply saying that since you can't justify your refusal to clarify what I asked you to, your claim of "I just don't" is not credible. Notice that you failed to offer a reasonable explanation in your defense? Because I sure did.

      Delete
    102. "Why is there nothing on the timeline for those five years, if legal action has been taking place?" ... Wow, that is classic liberaleze. You will claim a fact by using the lack of a statement as your proof. Since there is no statement saying court activity continued you assume it has ALL stopped. Yet, for some reason, you can't seem to find any actual proof of the ceasing of court activity.

      Delete
    103. "You will claim a fact by using the lack of a statement as your proof. Since there is no statement saying court activity continued you assume it has ALL stopped. Yet, for some reason, you can't seem to find any actual proof of the ceasing of court activity."

      It's a reasonable conclusion, until you can explain why the page would suddenly stop logging court activity for five years. Again, it's your argument, I'm simply showing its weakness. Instead of asking me to prove a negative, you should try to show the converse, demonstrating the court activity.

      Or you could explain how you think your way makes more sense. I'd love to see that.

      Delete
    104. "Instead of asking me to prove a negative, you should try to show the converse, demonstrating the court activity." ... I DID do that. I brought the link that showed court cases after gay marriage was legalized. You made the claim that it stopped after a period of time, it is YOUR responsibility to prove that. A lack of comments on a Wikipedia site hardly shows what you claim.

      Delete
    105. "You made the claim that it stopped after a period of time, it is YOUR responsibility to prove that."

      It's right there on the page you provided. There's no reason for court activity not to be listed, as evidenced by your glaring failure to explain that possibility. Again, it's not my responsibility to find better links for you. If you want to make an argument, make an effort. It's not my obligation.

      Also note that my comment is specific to the five-year gap, so your response regarding "court cases after gay marriage was legalized" is irrelevant.

      Delete
    106. "If you want to make an argument, make an effort. It's not my obligation." ... Did you really just say that? It isn't MY argument that YOU are making. I do not claim court cases stop 5 years ago. YOU are making that claim. Time for YOU to full-fill YOUR obligations and prove those cases stopped. Your wikipedia link does not prove that with any citations, so your claim is not proven yet.

      "Also note that my comment is specific to the five-year gap," ... Ok, that is duly noted. Also duly noted is your lack of support for your claim within your "specific" comment. Another thing duly noted is that you expect ME to prove what YOU are claiming.

      Delete
    107. "It isn't MY argument that YOU are making. I do not claim court cases stop 5 years ago."

      It's your argument that they're still going on. Back it up.

      "Your wikipedia link does not prove that with any citations, so your claim is not proven yet."

      It's your link, moron. You brought it. What do you expect it to say, "nothing follows"? You have no explanation for why there would be nothing on that list, while there's relevant court activity going on. Do some research to back up your argument that there's some steady source for litigation.

      "Another thing duly noted is that you expect ME to prove what YOU are claiming."

      No, it's your claim that gay marriage, in general, prompts court activity. I pointed out how your link undermines that claim. If you don't like it, make a better argument. You can dance around it for months, but you can not make a compelling argument that I'm supposed to prove a lack of court activity. So either make your case or let it go, because your childish tantrum isn't getting you anywhere.

      Delete
    108. "It's your argument that they're still going on. Back it up." ... I did and you have even used one of the many links, that I brought, in an unsuccessful attempt to discredit lawsuits that happened EVEN AFTER GAY MARRIAGE WAS LEGALIZED.

      Sorry, I have proven my point with several links with each one pointing to the FACT that legalizing gay marriage DID NOT stop the court cases. And, THAT is what YOU claim would happen with legalized gay marriage. It did NOT happen and I proved it with several links. You, however, cannot prove the court cases stopped.
      You can't even bring one little link to prove your point. Nothing but excuses come from you.

      Delete
    109. "... I did and you have even used one of the many links, that I brought, in an unsuccessful attempt to discredit lawsuits that happened EVEN AFTER GAY MARRIAGE WAS LEGALIZED."

      What did I try to "discredit"? I pointed out that you're stupidly comparing state level to federal. If gay marriage is nationally legalized, there's no need for people from another state to petition for rights to carry over from one state to their own. Ergo, your argument was ineffective. The five-year gap bolsters my point.

      "You, however, cannot prove the court cases stopped."

      It's not my responsibility, and you're asking me to prove a negative. You're still not getting anywhere.

      Delete
    110. "The five-year gap bolsters my point." ... What 5-year gap? There is no gap. You have not brought proof of any gap. Until you do, you can't claim something that isn't true as your only defensive point to use.

      Delete
    111. The five-year gap between 2008 and today. It's part of your link. And yes, I can use it as evidence until you counter it.

      So sorry.

      Delete
    112. There is no gap, there. There are no citations for that. So, it could simply be made up. You DO know how wikipedia works, don't you? When you find evidence of that gap, please bring it so that you can actually defend your stance without having to lie as often as you choose to.
      Sure, you can use it if you want, but using it without proper citations is simply lying. I realize you're very good at that, but it still doesn't OK the use of a link without proper citations. So, yeah, you can still use it ... if you want to continue being a liar.

      Delete
    113. "There is no gap, there. There are no citations for that."

      Hilarious. So if there was a gap, in this theoretical world of yours, wikipedia would say "Hey, this is a gap"? I'm genuinely curious what you're claiming the "citation" would be for a lack of court activity, as opposed to simply not listing any court activity.

      Delete
    114. Isn't wikipedia a user provided information site? It is hardly exact proof of anything other than hearsay statements made unless a citation for accuracy is provided. Where's your citation? Or, if the court cases did, in fact, stop then you should be able to easily find that information and share it.

      Delete
    115. "It is hardly exact proof of anything other than hearsay statements made unless a citation for accuracy is provided. Where's your citation?"

      You brought the link, moron. Dispute it all you like, because that reflects on the point you were making when you posted it.

      "Or, if the court cases did, in fact, stop then you should be able to easily find that information and share it."

      Or, since you're the one trying to prove they continued, you should "easily" be able to find that information to make your point. Instead of asking me to prove a negative, which is really rather stupid of you.

      Delete
    116. "You brought the link, moron. Dispute it all you like, because that reflects on the point you were making when you posted it." ... Yeah, but the parts of the link that I used have full citations for their accuracy. Your's does not. You see, this is how it works around here. I bring verifiable proof and you refuse to accept it. You bring no proof and expect all to believe you.

      "Or, since you're the one trying to prove they continued, you should "easily" be able to find that information to make your point." ... That's right. I should be able to do that. Wait, I DID DO THAT. And, all those links are still up above waiting for you to learn how to read.

      Delete
    117. "... Yeah, but the parts of the link that I used have full citations for their accuracy. Your's [sic] does not."

      Why would a gap have a citation? I'm still waiting for you to explain what you would expect to see there.

      "I bring verifiable proof and you refuse to accept it."

      I didn't "refuse" anything. I pointed out that it doesn't help your case.

      "... That's right. I should be able to do that. Wait, I DID DO THAT."

      Since 2008? No, liar, you did not.

      Delete
    118. "Since 2008? No, liar, you did not." ... I NEVER claimed those cases would continue to this day. I claimed those gays would continue their court cases even AFTER gay marriage was legalized. And, it did. I proved it and it is true. I NEVER said the court cases would continue forever. I rebutted your claim that court cases would cease once gay marriage was legalized. They did not cease and I proved it with my links.
      There IS NO GAP since 2008. You have not been able to show that the court cases ceased since 2008. You can't continue to make that claim without proof. Otherwise you are simply making shit up as you go. I understand that is your MO, but it only makes you look like the liar you prove yourself to be daily.

      Delete
    119. "... I NEVER claimed those cases would continue to this day."

      Then it's not comparable to polygamy, because the very nature of the arrangement allows for court action. There's nothing to stop that, unless the rules are changed. So, since you admit that you are not talking about a self-perpetuating source of legal action, your comparison is now officially null and void. Good job.

      "I rebutted your claim that court cases would cease once gay marriage was legalized."

      You actually failed to do even that, since the court cases in question wouldn't be applicable for nationally legalized gay marriage.

      "There IS NO GAP since 2008."

      According to your link, there is. And if you're not claiming cases would continue to this day, then you don't need to argue about the gap any longer. Pick an argument and stick with it.

      "You have not been able to show that the court cases ceased since 2008."

      I don't need to. Your link showed it. If you don't like it, all the time you've spent whining about your failures here could have been spent finding evidence for your case. Funny how you choose to bitch and moan instead of making the effort at a legitimate argument.

      Delete
    120. "I don't need to. Your link showed it." ... No, it does not. Show where the link specifies that court cases ceased after 2008 and bring the citation with that. I'm not going to believe someone's opinion until they provide proof that it is more than opinion. I proved my stance that court cases would continue even after legalization. You have not proven your stance that they would cease after legalization.

      Delete
    121. "Show where the link specifies that court cases ceased after 2008 and bring the citation with that."

      There's nothing listed after 2008. Still waiting for you to explain what the hell else you would expect to see when there's no longer any court activity.

      And why are you still arguing about this? You already said it's irrelevant to your point:"I NEVER said the court cases would continue forever."

      Delete
    122. Ahh, but it's NOT irrelevant to my point. In fact it completely supports my point and does not support yours. I brought proof of what I said would (and is) happening, you brought nothing but your opinion. So, in actuality, I should ask YOU that question: Why are you still arguing about this? Since you can't support your argument with facts or even heresay. All you have is opinion and lies.

      Delete
    123. "Ahh, but it's NOT irrelevant to my point."

      Then why did you make such a bold point about never claiming the court cases would continue forever?

      "In fact it completely supports my point and does not support yours."

      The lack of court activity since 2008 supports your point? No. No, it does not.

      "I brought proof of what I said would (and is) happening, you brought nothing but your opinion."

      Your "proof" was worthless, because it wouldn't be applicable to nationalized gay marriage. People from other states wouldn't have to do anything, because all states would be covered. Read it again for clarity.

      "Since you can't support your argument with facts or even heresay [sic]."

      Fact:your own link shows no court activity since 2008. Fact:you have failed to show that there has been any, even outside of your link, given multiple opportunities to do so.

      Delete
    124. "Then why did you make such a bold point about never claiming the court cases would continue forever?" ... Why would I make that claim?

      "The lack of court activity since 2008 supports your point? No. No, it does not." ... The court cases that continue certainly DO support my position. You brought in a point you cannot prove and cannot substantiate. What do I care if there is a gap in coverage? When you can prove that gap then you have something to talk about. Until then, ..... nothing.

      "Your "proof" was worthless, because it wouldn't be applicable to nationalized gay marriage." ... That (national) was never the issue until you figured out how stupid you were and then changed your stance. Good job, Mr I'm smarter than me.

      "Fact:your own link shows no court activity since 2008." ... FACT: ALL my links showed court cases happening AFTER gay marriage was legalized in EACH state. Which YOU said WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

      Delete
    125. "... Why would I make that claim?"

      First off, you didn't answer the question. You said it was irrelevant, yet you emphasize it as if it was. And you would make the claim because otherwise it's not comparable to polygamy and the perpetuation of legal action stemming from that change in law.

      "You brought in a point you cannot prove and cannot substantiate."

      It's not my job to prove a negative. If your link was lacking, it's your job to show that there's more out there than your original source provided.

      "That (national) was never the issue until you figured out how stupid you were and then changed your stance."

      It was always the issue, since no specific state was mentioned and there's no way to believe I would be advocating for one state and not any others.

      " ... FACT: ALL my links showed court cases happening AFTER gay marriage was legalized in EACH state. Which YOU said WOULD NOT HAPPEN."

      No, moron, I'm not concerned with clarifying rulings. I never suggested I was. My point was that you were whining about people fighting for legal rights, and that once people accept the need for such rights, then that fight is over. It wouldn't be comparable to lawsuits going on from individual polygamous marriages, which would be perpetuated through the change in the nature of marriage laws. No matter how you cut it, your argument failed. Mourn it and move on.

      Delete
    126. "First off, you didn't answer the question." ... Ok, why would I make that claim, since it isn't part of my point about gay marriage lawsuits continuing even after legalization. And, besides, the lawsuits have not stopped yet, so we are still in your "forever" comment.

      " If your link was lacking, it's your job to show that there's more out there than your original source provided." ... My links were not lacking in anything. They showed exactly what I intended them to show. You now make a claim that you will not prove. If you can't prove a negative, how can you claim a negative?

      "No, moron, I'm not concerned with clarifying rulings. I never suggested I was." .... I don't care what you're concerned with. The FACT remains that those links showed a continued court system clogging by those in favor of gay marriage.

      "My point was that you were whining about people fighting for legal rights, and that once people accept the need for such rights, then that fight is over." ... Yes, I know exactly what your point is (was). And you have not been able to prove that irrational fear, yet, either. Since all states that legalized gay marriage STILL have court cases going related to gay marriage then I am right and you are wrong. I proved my position and you have not. Simple as that.

      "Mourn it and move on." ... Are you kidding? I'm having fun leading your around by your nose. Keep up the replies, they are really starting to show everyone your paranoid side along with the already established irrational side.

      Delete
    127. "... Ok, why would I make that claim, since it isn't part of my point about gay marriage lawsuits continuing even after legalization."

      If it isn't your claim that the court action is self-perpetuating, then it's not comparable to polygamy. That's why you brought it up in the first place, remember? It was another of your knee-jerk responses, where I talked about the potential legal action after legalized polygamy, and you jumped in with a gay marriage reference.

      "... My links were not lacking in anything. They showed exactly what I intended them to show."

      A very limited and irrelevant bit of clarification rulings? That's what you intended to show? Then you missed the boat, because in no way does that serve your cause.

      "If you can't prove a negative, how can you claim a negative?"

      Because your link shows a gap. The most reasonable conclusion is that the gap exists because there is no court activity to list, and that conclusion is bolstered by your glaring failure to demonstrate otherwise.

      "The FACT remains that those links showed a continued court system clogging by those in favor of gay marriage."

      A few cases from citizens of neighboring states is not clogging, and it's not applicable to gay marriage being legalized nationally.

      "Since all states that legalized gay marriage STILL have court cases going related to gay marriage then I am right and you are wrong."

      What cases are going on in Massachusetts? And again, you're wrong because you're talking about state level while I am not and never was.

      "Keep up the replies, they are really starting to show everyone your paranoid side along with the already established irrational side."

      Oh, I'm absolutely convinced of that. Note the sarcasm.

      Delete
    128. "If it isn't your claim that the court action is self-perpetuating, then it's not comparable to polygamy." ... Who said it was "self perpetuating"? Adding words again? Yes, AGAIN. There is no need for "self perpetuating", since the government will need to defend cases of discrimination because of legalized gay marriage and there will be cases against churches that don't approve of that deviant lifestyle and will be sued for not wanting to perform the marriage and the government will be forced to step in. Same thing with polygamy. So as you add words to claims they still don't fit within your idea that you've 'got me' in some way.

      "Then you missed the boat, because in no way does that serve your cause." .... Court cases just the same. My boat left with me, not without me. Yours, however, left without you weeks ago while you were using the 'I don't like polygamy because they will scam the government into debt' argument and then made the claim that all court cases would cease once gay marriage was legalized. Which they did not.

      "A few cases from citizens of neighboring states is not clogging, and it's not applicable to gay marriage being legalized nationally." ... Doesn't matter how few. YOU said they would STOP. They did not. You are wrong.



      Delete
    129. "... Who said it was "self perpetuating"?"

      I did. It's called a "description". Polygamy would have "self-perpetuating" legal action because the very nature of the concept would give rights and benefits normally allotted for one person to multiple people. Hence, said multiple people would have every right to sue each other in every case of disagreement or competition. Fighting for rights is not comparable, because there's no further need for legal action once that battle is won.

      "There is no need for "self perpetuating", since the government will need to defend cases of discrimination because of legalized gay marriage and there will be cases against churches that don't approve of that deviant lifestyle and will be sued for not wanting to perform the marriage and the government will be forced to step in."

      First off, what the hell does "need" for self-perpetuating mean? And you can't possibly imagine how hilarious it is for you to claim bigotry because I supposedly make things up, then you go off on a bender about people suing churches. What the hell are you talking about? What does that have to do with polygamy, exactly, as you say "same thing"?

      ".... Court cases just the same."

      They don't support your argument, just the same.

      "Yours, however, left without you weeks ago while you were using the 'I don't like polygamy because they will scam the government into debt' argument and then made the claim that all court cases would cease once gay marriage was legalized. Which they did not."

      Did you really just say "into debt"? We're already in debt, so I'm pretty sure I didn't use those words. Also, I'm sure you don't realize how stupid it sounds for you to cite my projection (meaning a future event) and then talking about state-level gay marriage (meaning a past event). You make it obvious that I wasn't talking about individual states, all on your own.

      "... Doesn't matter how few. YOU said they would STOP."

      There's no need for further legal action after gay marriage is nationally legalized, because it would apply to everyone. Your argument hinges on the idea that the concept of implication doesn't actually exist. It makes you look rather stupid, so you know.

      Delete
    130. "It's called a "description". Polygamy would have "self-perpetuating" legal action because the very nature of the concept would give rights and benefits normally allotted for one person to multiple people." ... Can you prove that? Or is that part of your imaginary fear of polygamy? I think it is just an assumption made by you with no real basis for it.

      " then you go off on a bender about people suing churches." ... If you had any kind of brain you'd know that is already happening. But, I get what is expected.

      "They don't support your argument, just the same." ... Yes they do. I said court cases would continue and you said they would stop after legalization. I was right, you were (are) wrong.

      "There's no need for further legal action after gay marriage is nationally legalized, because it would apply to everyone." ... Unfortunately, states get to make rules differently than federal, so state issue would be the only case in point in this discussion. You already know that, but need to find a way of excusing your stupidness.

      BTW, it didn't work.

      Delete
    131. "... Can you prove that? Or is that part of your imaginary fear of polygamy?"

      I'm sorry, did you imagine that you created some sort of limitation or standard for polygamy? Do you think the first spouse should be legally superior by default? You haven't said so. And if not, then the rights that come along with marriage would apply to multiple spouses equally. Now, if you'd like to explain how those spouses wouldn't have the right to sue each other for control and inheritance in the absence of a will, I'd sure as hell like to hear it. You keep circling back to things that were established long ago.

      "... If you had any kind of brain you'd know that is already happening."

      The only case I can imagine you referring to involved a rental property, not a church. Again, I'm trying to figure out what you thought you were talking about. How would polygamy be the "same thing"?

      "... Yes they do. I said court cases would continue and you said they would stop after legalization."

      No, because I wasn't talking about state level, and your nitpicking bullshit misses the point. You're intellectually dishonest.

      "... Unfortunately, states get to make rules differently than federal, so state issue would be the only case in point in this discussion."

      Federal law trumps state law. They have to work within the nationally-set boundaries.

      Delete
    132. "No, because I wasn't talking about state level," ... Liar. You never distinguished between the two until I mentioned it. You were talking about legalized gay marriage that was occurring at the time and that INCLUDED state level laws.

      "Federal law trumps state law." ... How do you explain legal pot sales/use in several STATES? You're not very good at this are you?

      Delete
    133. "... Liar. You never distinguished between the two until I mentioned it."

      I never had to. I never mentioned a specific state, either, so you would have no basis to assume that was my meaning.

      "You were talking about legalized gay marriage that was occurring at the time and that INCLUDED state level laws."

      That was occurring when? What the hell are you babbling about?

      "... How do you explain legal pot sales/use in several STATES?"

      Educate yourself:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_preemption

      Delete
    134. "I never mentioned a specific state, either, so you would have no basis to assume that was my meaning." ... The discussion is on legalized gay marriage. What else would have been assumed since it is illegal federally?

      "Educate yourself" ... I expected you to do that. Thanks for showing that you can't answer the simple questions. Unless you want to try again: How do you explain legal pot sales/use in several states? If you don't answer, all I can assume is that you've given up and figured out you cannot top my superior intellect.

      Delete
    135. "... The discussion is on legalized gay marriage. What else would have been assumed since it is illegal federally?"

      That's exactly why it's so obviously about the federal level. There's no hypothesizing to do regarding states that already have legalized it.

      "Unless you want to try again: How do you explain legal pot sales/use in several states?"

      Sorry, your question doesn't make the facts magically vanish, as much as you would like that. Either the laws aren't valid, or you're assuming that the same circumstances would be met for gay marriage. But for someone who so often claims to talk about "facts", you look awfully stupid brushing them off because you seem to believe you asked a question that negates them.

      Delete
    136. Twice you've ignored that question. I think you have nothing to sustain your side of this discussion any more. You claim polygamy is a hypothetical, but deny gay marriage is a hypothetical. You say federal laws trump state laws but you have no answer for how states legalize pot use/sales while the feds have not. I think you've lost yet another argument with me. I keep telling you how much smarter than you I am, yet you continue to make yourself look foolish. Why do you put yourself through that torture? Or do you enjoy being whooped by a "moron"? What level does that put you at if a "moron" can beat any and every one of your points within your arguments?

      Delete
    137. "Twice you've ignored that question."

      Take a class, because I'm not going to teach you here. Again, your question doesn't change the fact behind what I said.

      "You claim polygamy is a hypothetical, but deny gay marriage is a hypothetical."

      What are you babbling about? Federally, it's hypothetical, and I never said otherwise. I also talked about the hypothetical on the federal level in the very post you're replying to, moron.

      "What level does that put you at if a "moron" can beat any and every one of your points within your arguments?"

      I'll let you know when you ever get the better of me. It hasn't happened yet.

      Delete
  5. When my son was in fifth grade this subject came up amongst me and some friends. He interrupted and said he had watched a lot of roadrunner cartoons but he was not going to build rocket shoes or drop an Acme safe on anyone's head. That is all I have to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Janet. I grew up with some wild cartoons also. However,comparing weapons used is a little 'childish', isn't it? Name anyone who has been murdered by an anvil or safe? Let's be real, here. The options allowed a child of today in (even from the 70's and beyond) are of a totally different aspect. Many video games (and cartoons) started to be and are now created to be REALISTIC. Which also teaches the mind of the child a different thing.

      I'm not the one who said: "Video games don't cause violently psychotic behavior". I'm the one who disagreed and stated why. I'm not the one bearing false witness.

      Delete
  6. free dating:
    evегyone's doing it that they can be a member of any scam. The web dating grow to be sought on line. The divorced 20-odd years old.
    Also see my web site - dating

    ReplyDelete
  7. I care abοut youг specifіc sіtuаtion
    instead to rаspbeгry ketones. Clarκ Ѕit in one
    fell swoop ωill help you feel full without adding cаlorieѕ.
    Moгe power to striсtlу stick to than оthers.


    Feel freе to surf to mу blog :: best raspberry ketone supplement

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ѕweet blοg! I found it while brοωsing on Yаhoo News.

    Do you hаνe any tips on how to get listeԁ in Yahoo News?
    І've been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Thank you

    my webpage Tens units

    ReplyDelete