Jump to content

Home

GarfieldJL

Banned
  • Posts

    1930
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GarfieldJL

  1. For the record, there were a number of incidents where a certain staff member went in and deleted posts where I provided sources. Because normally the media won't point that stuff out, and on the flipside you guys constantly bash conservatives, if I had a dollar for all the times you guys pushed for Bush being prosecuted I could retire a millionare. Problem with that analogy is that I'm not exagerating at all, in order to be a fear-monger I would have to using it to just be trying to inspire fear to accomplish a hidden agenda, which is not it, I'm honestly scared to death based on the information I've found and honestly wish it was wrong, but the more I've found the more my fears are confirmed. I tend not to let people who actively insult me especially when my views differ from theirs know too much about me. I've actually refrained a lot from retailiatory insults towards people on the forums until recently because quite frankly I've been pushed a bit too far. Actually I've got problems with some conservatives, I don't often agree with Rush, there are some issues I do agree with him on, I think Ann Coulter is on the fringe. That said, I don't think it's appropriate to call Ms. Coulter a bitch because of her political beliefs. Oh that's strange, considering I can't even play a darkside char in KotOR I & II nor darkside Jaden Korr because I constantly feel guilty hurting others. Darth333 and I have had debates before and I respect her. So now you're accusing me of being a hate-monger? What next you going to play the race card... Likewise it isn't you or other liberal's propaganda stand either, or its not supposed to be. I will, if it wasn't you I will apologize and say who it was. No, if you'll note part of what they said was sarcasm and actually taking a shot at you guys, if Toten/Tommycat have a problem they'd pm me in private. I actually just think you people have arrived at the wrong conclusions or misinterpreted facts, I don't think I'm inheritently better than any other human being. Kavars' was destroyed to begin with even before I became active there, there was a long history of staff members abusing their powers there. The Contact Staff forum maybe I used the nuke option too much, but bear in mind I had lost all faith in the integrity of the general staff of Lucasforums with a few exceptions. And without me, Tommycat, and Toten, this place would be nothing more than a giant left wing blog. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why he would say that (because he knew it would cost Obama the election). It isn't a scare tactic, and you're taking some of what was said out of context, and Fox News provided some pretty good evidence to prove the Socialism part. Something tells me you're taking what was said way out of context and it wasn't quite what they said. Sean has asked why isn't Obama proud of this country and point out we beat back "Fascism." It's more of don't have to because I know there will already be a topic on the forum and at least 5-6 posts in it by the time I first see the article. Actually, I know I'm not trolling and I can back that part up cause I looked up the definition. And there is a case where an MSNBC news affiliate got sued for an employee splicing together a video to make it look like a Fox Employee referred to Mr. Holder as a baboon. Unless I actually see it on Fox News I tend to be hesitant to believe what I see is said to have been said on Fox News because of that reason (especially since there has been a pattern of this).
  2. Well consider this, while radical feminists want this, do you particularly want men to no longer have a purpose for existing? I imagine most guys wouldn't mind lesbians having affairs though despite being married to a guy, heck I doubt most guys would even be jealous. There is no valid reason for gay marriage either, in fact I can argue gay marriage is discriminatory to straight people. Gay people can marry with a heterosexual right now and still carry on their love life, heck they don't even have to marry right now and many insurance companies will carry their partner. If two straight people try to get together and file for joint insurance, if they aren't married they can't put their partner on the coverage. Classic discrimination.
  3. That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that from a natural standpoint it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, if one or both are sterile so be it, and with the fertility clinics you seem to advocate, they can produce children via artificial means from both parents, still semi-natural.
  4. Where have you been? I've seen people bash McCain, bash Palin, hurl stuff they knew wasn't true. (and I'm going to stop there unless I get it in writing that I'm not going to be infracted for pointing out the rest of it. I'd say it's borderline, Hussein is his middle name, not sure if they were making a reference to Bin Laden deliberately or if it was a typo. Glad you asked, there is a difference, most news sites anymore just throw up whatever the AP or Reuters says without checking it. Newsbusters has a tendency to source things when they put up their take on something, whether that be video, audio, etc. Usually they use left-wing sources in that regard so you can usually find both sides from the article or have a reference to find both sides. The mainstream media by and large does not do this, which is why I'd take Newsbusters as a source over most of the media. Littlegreenfootballs is an interesting source, I'm aware of its bias, I'm also aware of its track record at uncovering things and catching 'reputable' news agencies of out and out lying. I usually have to read a second source before I use littlegreenfootballs, but there is a decent track record there for a blog site. I don't consider CNN a valid News source, and the fact they got caught at distorting a story to make average Americans look like racists. Reuters and the AP got caught out and out taking bogus photos during the Israeli/Lebanon War (photos that some 5 year olds could have done a better job) and post it up as the gospel truth. (Littlegreenfootballs was one of the conservative bloggers that caught them at it and called them on it) BBC got nailed for the same incident, as did CNN and later Reuters admitted the photos had been doctored.
  5. No, he's legitimately pointing out that polygamist groups and pedophile groups for that matter could use this argument to say that they should be allowed to marry too. Because once you open it for one group, you open it for the others. The difference between the others and marriage between a man and a woman is in order for children to be born. You need one man and one woman to mate and the offspring would be there child, thus in order for there to be a stable situation for that child, you can argue that marriage between a man and a woman is different from the others.
  6. To sum it up it's called ignoring a bully, which in my view is all you are. I can have extremely good debates with some people here one on one, but generally the people that respond to me on these threads seem unable to get their heads out of their behinds long enough to stop and consider the fact that I may actually be pointing out legitimate facts that call into question stances that you have taken. I used to read what everyone here wrote, but quite frankly a lot of you with your juvenile antics (some of which I have screenshots of (sad part is you can't even realize it's juvenile only because it's bashing conservatives)), have lost any respect I might have had for you at one time. For the record, there are a few liberals here that I respect, and we've actually had good debates, which is maybe why I keep hoping that some people here will actually wise up and stop drinking the Kool-Aid. I'm sure you've also forgotten the thread where either you or jmac had McCain supposedly having his wife in the crosshairs (I believe it was either a Wolfenstein 3D style or Duke Nuke'um style game thing). Over the top in your opinion. I'm not saying all liberals but you get gang-up bashed on enough by the same people whom are all far-left liberals, you're going to have a fairly low opinion of liberals in general. There are a few liberals on Lucasforums that I don't mind, and can have an intelligent conversation with. First I see Liberals as people, just I usually see liberals as elitist snobs that think they are better than everyone else and thus entitled to certain things when they aren't. If I saw liberals as children, then I'd be a lot more patient with them, than I am being with you. Heed your own words then, if myself and about 3-4 others weren't here, this would be nothing more THAN a Leftwing blog. I'd like you to try to have a look at senate records I pulled before instead of just dismissing it as propaganda. I'm fine with Obama being called a socialist because he was a member of the New Socialist Party. Despite the fact they tried to cover that fact up after it was exposed, so it's a matter of record. The Hitler thing is a bit of a stretch at the moment, I generally dismiss the people with that kind of poster out of hand as some nutjob that showed up at the teaparty protests, or someone that went a little too far because they are ticked. I usually don't have to bring up the right wing people that do it because practically every news organization in the country is willing to bring it up to bash conservatives over the head before I even hear about it. I'm not trolling, I'm not coming up with a false charecter to try to sabotage people, I'm not a plant either, something tells me you don't know what the word means... No, I'm just not going to consider sources like MoveOn.org, MediaMatters, or MSNBC to be valid sources.
  7. How about no, because I don't want government involved even more in my life, assuming that Government is even competitent enough to manage something to begin.
  8. So you're now saying that pedophiles should be allowed to do what they want because it's their sexual orientation and they're being denied their fundamental rights? Seriously there are some things that shouldn't be allowed. (Btw, I don't think it's what you meant Rogue Nine, just showing where it can lead) I have no problem with homosexuals being able to have civil unions, just don't call it marriage.
  9. I'm not pushing for impeachment unless it can be proved that he committed an impeachable offense, what I would like is for him to get new vetters for choosing appointees. That said, if Obama committed bribery, then public opinion or no Public Opinion the Constitution defines it as an impeachable offense. Sorry if I'm not falling for the Obama is the second-coming garbage.
  10. Tell that to Scooter Libby, whom we know for a fact and we know that the Prosecutor knew that Libby wasn't the leak, and the prosecutor still went after Libby anyways. Tell that to President Bush, whom you all tend to claim that he let 9/11 happen or he deliberately went into Iraq knowing the intelligence was faulty. At least when I accused Obama of being tied into this there is a money trail (which I posted about before), there is also a pattern (which I tried to lay out only to have posts deleted by certain individuals), while you and your cronies just have a bunch of conspiracy theorists.
  11. It's more of that I usually ignore you in general, because the conversation typically devolves into a brawl. Are you going to read it this time, cause contrary to what some people here would like to believe, I really don't enjoy repeating myself over and over. I fail to see your logic in claiming Bush is the anti-Christ to be even remotely factual. Nor is the Bush being out to take over the world argument... Seriously, I would post the 9/11 argument about Bill Ayers which one of you accused me of making up, but I'd probably be infracted for spam. Didn't I post audio from a radio program in Kavar's the last time you challenged me when I said Obama was for income redistribution. Then there is the item that the Democrats are trying to push through known as the "Fairness" Doctrine which is really the Censorship Doctrine, and if Obama was really against it why is he appointing people that want it reinstated this time to shut down talk radio? It's more of if someone is going to act like a 3 year old, I'm going to treat them like a three year old. There is such a thing as right and wrong, and excuse me if I value my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. You feeling cool with the fact the Liberal Left (I believe you did as well), compared Bush to Hitler. (If I'm mistaken on you specifically saying that then I apologize to you PastramiX, but I do remember someone here doing so. Well at least I'm acting like an adult then, considering I rarely swear here at all, and you did it 3 times in two sentences.
  12. Okay you owe me $5. -- dictionary.com The truth usually is a good counterargument.
  13. Obama was taking kickbacks from the Freddie Mac and the other bank in question, in fact he was getting so much that if you just look at the 2 years he was senator, he was the recipient of more money from those two than anyone else in the Senate. Furthermore there is Obama's representing ACORN in that lawsuit to force Citibank into making loans they knew people couldn't pay. And he also consulted ACORN as how intimidate various businessmen. I posted this stuff in Kavar's before and you were one of the people replying to it, so I'm guessing you either don't remember, were too lazy to read it, or unwilling to read anything that would call your liberal worldview into question. Income Redistribution comes to mind, as does trying to do away with the 2nd Amendment and Free Speech. Fine I made an error on which way Garofalo leans, that doesn't mean Skin and yourself for that matter aren't being partisan. The constant covering for a man that continuely appoints people that are under investigation for corruption or should be in prison for tax evasion is a pretty good indicator. Contrary to what you believe, I actually do read a lot of what people here write. Just when people use sources like MoveOn.org or MSNBC as sources to bash conservatives, then I question the validity of their comments. That explains why Obama's chief of staff tried to coordinate an effort to shut Rush up, if they consider him that much of a threat to their agenda, I'm wondering what Rush found that has them so worried. Actually there is, am I using words that are too big for you to understand? That's called people angry over Government spending and using their money to bailout the people whom caused this mess. It has nothing to do with racism and you know it. [Mockery]Now now, considering you believe in the annointed one, you shouldn't use Obama's name in vain.[/HK47] His sources implied that Mr. Fox hadn't been taking his medication, so he said what he did based on the information he had at the time. And something tells me you've never even listened to Rush, just a bunch of soundbytes MoveOn.org has gathered. I was pointing out his situation was different from deciding to abuse alcohol and becoming an alcoholic, some painkillers are highly addictive and he should have been monitored more closely in the follow-up after surgery. The man was embarassed and tried to deny there was a problem. As far as him being a blowhard, I guess it takes one to know one, so what does that make you?
  14. Ad hominem removed -ET @ EnderWiggin Do you want me to quote the definitions of the words from websters dictionary, or dictionary.com? Using big words doesn't mean you're intelligent, just means you know how to use big words. Also it's funny how you only use innocent until proven guilty when it is a Democrat. Seriously, you guys are drunk on Kool-Aid.
  15. While there is plenty of blame to go around, one can legitimately blame the current administration for causing part of this mess. And then his appointing people that don't pay their taxes doesn't speak highly of his administration either.
  16. At what point do bad associations become more than coincidences and start becoming a pattern? Anyways I already did post some sources, however you seem to be unable or unwilling to even look at them, both when I posted sources concerning this before the November Election and new stories on it all the way through April of this year and you mean to tell me that you haven't seen any sources...
  17. And some of those banks that didn't need the bailout money and didn't want the bailout money were forced by the Obama administration to take it.
  18. With your own statements about the sub-prime mortgages, you debunked your own argument. @ Rogue Nine Your first source isn't exactly that credible. You second source about Michael J. Fox shows that Rush doesn't know much about Parkinsons (nevermind the fact that Mr. Fox was unusually young to get the condition). Your third source about him being a drug user he got addicted to the painkiller after surgery, and does that excuse it not really. I've never said the man was a saint. As for your comments about him being a blowhard, he's an entertainer, not a reporter, if he was as bad as you claim (which I sincerely doubt), he wouldn't be the most listened to Radio Personality in the country. In summary as usual you use sources which you know aren't credible to try to trash Conservatives.
  19. The Feds were more of a problem than you are letting on, look up Freddie Mac sometime, the loans were supposedly guarenteed by the Federal Government. Another problem for Obama is that economic experts are pointing out that his spending spree isn't sustainable. And mimartin, I have looked at the data thank you kindly. Here is an article of interest: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958260423012269.html http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/04/19/chicago-tea-partiers-roesgen-cnn-go-home-cnn-go-home You may want to watch the video in the article above.
  20. He asked if I had been there I answered. Anyways have you had a look at who all he's appointed, one of them is currently under investigation by the SEC for goodness sakes.
  21. Problem is he can't find a source that I can't easily debunk, and we're also assuming that I think Skin has any credibility left at this point. That's only partially true, the Federal Government forced banks to make the risky loans, I've pointed that out on several occasions. And I can tell some of them that I told them so for four years. Actually it does have to do with the tax system, and thanks for further demonstrating the hypocracy of the liberal left. Try reading: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854083982575457.html Also look at: http://chartingtheeconomy.com/?p=378 Explains why Obama is trying to keep banks from returning the bailout money that they don't want. Seriously, Bush warned about this possibly happening in 2003. McCain warned about this in 2005, 2006, 2007. And the Democrats stonewalled the each and every time. You can't blame Bush for this mess aside from the first bailout (which was stupid).
  22. I am on topic, ever consider that people may be angry with the government messing with their wallets and that's why they are protesting?
  23. Getting back to topic it looks like the Obama administration is trying to keep Banks from paying back the Bailout money and is also trying to get the Federal Government Stocks in those banks. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/20/report-banks-repaying-bailout-funds-face-national-test/
  24. I haven't changed the subject, I'm calling you on the fact your argument is a bunch of bull and you know it.
×
×
  • Create New...