[quote]Professor X wrote:
Again, are youi even bringing this forward because of some moral issue you have with it, and if so, why ignore the other recent occurances? I brought it up before due to that simple fact. You either care about all of it…or your true intentions come into question.[/quote]
So someone wishing to discuss some current news event cannot do so if he’s previously ignored similar news event in the past? How fucking dumb is that?
Maybe he can hit news.google.com and paste in 2,000 URLs of “back-references” to make sure he covers all the bases.
It’d be nice to have a couple of threads where people can discuss and debate stuff without you barging in and questioning everyone about ulterior motives.
If all you want is to stir some shit up, just go stick a rectal thermometer in someone.
Yes, we all do. This is Headhunter after all. You don’t have to humor him if you don’t want, but get off the back of those who do.
Who knows, an interesting discussion just might spring up.
[quote]tveddy wrote:
This thread made me think of something that I’ve been laughin about for a couple weeks. Locally there has been a drought and a lot of farmers (who usually only farm wheat) planted corn and milo to be able to collect the insurance later when it didn’t fair well. last week we got rain and it looks like the crops will fair well enough that the assholes dont get any insurance on it and they have to pay the fuel bill and labor to harvest it. I hate people that cheat on their insurance because it makes it more expensive for the people who are doin things right.[/quote]
Yeah, for some reason it appears to be incomprehensible to some people that “cheating the insurance company” tranlates to “cheating yourself and all it’s other customers” as you’ll get to foot the bill for yourself and all the other cheaters.
As usual, the only ones getting fucked are the honest customers who pay their premiums and file only truthful claims.
So someone wishing to discuss some current news event cannot do so if he’s previously ignored similar news event in the past? How fucking dumb is that? [/quote]
That wasn’t the point. As I brought up in the original thread, I doubted WHY he was discussing it to begin with. You admit “that this is Headhunter” but then get pissed because I am questioning his motives? I don’t consider him “innocent” in anything that he posts. Perhaps you need to remove whatever rectal appliance you have stuck in you.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
That wasn’t the point. As I brought up in the original thread, I doubted WHY he was discussing it to begin with. You admit “that this is Headhunter” but then get pissed because I am questioning his motives?[/quote]
I’m pissed because you keep popping up in threads where you contribute nothing to the topic at hand, but instead keep asking people “Why do you want to know?” “Is that really the reason for…?” “Why didn’t you reply to this other thread…?”
No, he’s pretty transparent. Still, you don’t have to jump with both feet on anyone that replies to one of his threads. How will any discussion manage to start if everyone’s busy justifying themselves to you?
You really want to get more shit from me? That appliance is there for your safety and sanity.
I’m pissed because you keep popping up in threads where you contribute nothing to the topic at hand, but instead keep asking people “Why do you want to know?” [/quote]
Yes, ALL of these threads that I ask this question in. Please find even one more. Be sure not to let that butt plug fall out in your search. It stinks enough in here.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Yes, ALL of these threads that I ask this question in. Please find even one more. Be sure not to let that butt plug fall out in your search. It stinks enough in here.[/quote]
Here ya go Captain Alzheimer:
From “Another Christianity Debate”: “Is there a point to all of this besides…”
Maybe, maybe not. You wouldn’t happen to have one to make yourself? No? Good. See ya later.
From “To All The Unbelievers”, in response to electric_eales who asked a question about Jesus dying for men’s sins: “Why do you care?” and the next post: “IF you care? If you don’t care, why are you asking questions?”
Why the fuck should he have to explain himself to you? Do we need to get ProfX-Approved Permits before posting now? Sheesh.
I’ve got a few others I can’t find off the top of my head, but tell’ya what: I’ll make sure to point it out to you at every occasion from now on.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Yes, ALL of these threads that I ask this question in. Please find even one more. Be sure not to let that butt plug fall out in your search. It stinks enough in here.
Here ya go Captain Alzheimer:
From “Another Christianity Debate”: “Is there a point to all of this besides…”
Maybe, maybe not. You wouldn’t happen to have one to make yourself? No? Good. See ya later.
From “To All The Unbelievers”, in response to electric_eales who asked a question about Jesus dying for men’s sins: “Why do you care?” and the next post: “IF you care? If you don’t care, why are you asking questions?”
Why the fuck should he have to explain himself to you? Do we need to get ProfX-Approved Permits before posting now? Sheesh.
I’ve got a few others I can’t find off the top of my head, but tell’ya what: I’ll make sure to point it out to you at every occasion from now on.
[/quote]
Better question, why do I need to gear my responses to your personal approval? Deal with it. Quit reading my posts if it bothers you so. You will have much better luck with that than expecting me to conform to your likes or dislikes. I asked him that because he wasn’t just asking questions. Many of these people enjoy simply tearing down an entire religion. People like Steveo give them plenty of ammunition to do it as well. If you don’t like me stepping in to attempt ending that cycle, I will continue to do it even more.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Better question, why do I need to gear my responses to your personal approval? Deal with it. Quit reading my posts if it bothers you so. You will have much better luck with that than expecting me to conform to your likes or dislikes.[/quote]
I don’t care how you gear your response, I simply find it annoying the see budding discussions turn to mush as you butt in with nothing else to do but to complain loudly and repeatedly about trivial piffles that just so happen to rub you the wrong way.
Yeah, yeah, we get it. Religion is a touchy subject with you. Maybe you should ask yourself why. 'Cause to me, it looks like your “profound beliefs” are like a big house of cards, and all questions about them appear as big bowling balls rolling right at them.
Anyone who thinks that steveo represents a majority of believers is an idiot; but thanks for thinking that only you can see that.
Right. 'Cause there’s just no way people are going to be discussing stuff you don’t approve of if you can help it. It’s funny how people who makes comments about open-mindedness fail to apply their standards to themselves…
[quote]pookie wrote:
I don’t care how you gear your response, I simply find it annoying the see budding discussions turn to mush as you butt in with nothing else to do but to complain loudly and repeatedly about trivial piffles that just so happen to rub you the wrong way.[/quote]
Meanwhile, you haven’t added one thing concerning this discussion you are posting in, you retarded hypocrite. I forget, was this post the one about Katrina or the previous one? Before you answer, check butt plug placement.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Meanwhile, you haven’t added one thing concerning this discussion you are posting in, you retarded hypocrite. I forget, was this post the one about Katrina or the previous one? Before you answer, check butt plug placement.[/quote]
Actually, I probably wouldn’t have posted at all in this thread if I hadn’t seen another one of your bitchy whines about why people are posting what they are.
You went off topic and now you’re giving me shit about not posting about Katrina? Did they have stupid on sale at the 7-11 and you bought a double dose on the way to work?
You’d look a lot smarter if you simply stopped trying to justify your boorish behavior on threads you don’t like. The petulant child attitude gets old very, very quickly.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
I don’t care how you gear your response, I simply find it annoying the see budding discussions turn to mush as you butt in with nothing else to do but to complain loudly and repeatedly about trivial piffles that just so happen to rub you the wrong way.
Meanwhile, you haven’t added one thing concerning this discussion you are posting in, you retarded hypocrite. I forget, was this post the one about Katrina or the previous one? Before you answer, check butt plug placement.[/quote]
Meanwhile still not one word on the original topic. Pookie hits the nail right on the head. You should take some of what others are saying to heart. You get accused and then accuse the accuser of the very same thing. My ex wife used to do that. She is insane.
Great battle, guys! Can I jump in with a question?
Prof, you seem to think I have some hidden, evil intent by posting this thread. Pookie says I’m ‘transparent’. Well, my very limited intellect doesn’t follow: what’s my evil intent and what’s transparent? I thought my goal, consistent with my philosophy, was very limited government and freedom for the individual. I can’t figure out my evil intent. Am I racist, without being aware?
Seriously, guys, explain it to me and remember, this is Headhunter you’re writing to.
You’re posting about fraud comitted with the Katrina Relief dollars not to discuss the fraud itself, or to discuss eventual solutions to prevent similar frauds in the future, but to justify not giving to charity and asking for lower taxes (by preventing the government from doing charity in your name thru taxes).
In other words, you’re not concerned about the poor victims who’ll miss out on the help that could’ve been provided with those 2 billions of missing funds; but rather concerned at having paid a small part of those 2 billions from your own pocket. They’re not the important victims, you are.
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
I don’t care how you gear your response, I simply find it annoying the see budding discussions turn to mush as you butt in with nothing else to do but to complain loudly and repeatedly about trivial piffles that just so happen to rub you the wrong way.
Meanwhile, you haven’t added one thing concerning this discussion you are posting in, you retarded hypocrite. I forget, was this post the one about Katrina or the previous one? Before you answer, check butt plug placement.
Meanwhile still not one word on the original topic. Pookie hits the nail right on the head. You should take some of what others are saying to heart. You get accused and then accuse the accuser of the very same thing. My ex wife used to do that. She is insane.[/quote]
As if you aren’t? How about you follow me around to 3 or 4 more threads today.
[quote]pookie wrote:
You’re posting about fraud comitted with the Katrina Relief dollars not to discuss the fraud itself, or to discuss eventual solutions to prevent similar frauds in the future, but to justify not giving to charity and asking for lower taxes (by preventing the government from doing charity in your name thru taxes).
[/quote]
I don’t think that HeadHunter has a problem with charity, just with “forced” charity through the government.
It does seem that anything the government does, it does poorly. Katrina isn’t, I think, the best illustration of the point, since so many people were, legitimately, victims. The problem is when the government starts to subsidize or give charity to other groups of people; people we might not agree upon as really being ‘victims’ or being benefitted by charity.
Of course, through taxation, the government does remove an element of choice in charity… one has less to give to those particular causes that one might prefer.
I’m not as absolute on this issue as HeadHunter is. There are some times when government intervention is essential, because our government is charged with maintaining the state. At some point, it becomes impossible to maintain the state, or a part of it, without massive monetary intervention.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pookie wrote:
I don’t care how you gear your response, I simply find it annoying the see budding discussions turn to mush as you butt in with nothing else to do but to complain loudly and repeatedly about trivial piffles that just so happen to rub you the wrong way.
Meanwhile, you haven’t added one thing concerning this discussion you are posting in, you retarded hypocrite. I forget, was this post the one about Katrina or the previous one? Before you answer, check butt plug placement.
Meanwhile still not one word on the original topic. Pookie hits the nail right on the head. You should take some of what others are saying to heart. You get accused and then accuse the accuser of the very same thing. My ex wife used to do that. She is insane.
As if you aren’t? How about you follow me around to 3 or 4 more threads today.[/quote]
Are you only allowed to do that?
I just happened to catch you in “the act” again.
Are you only allowed to do that?
I just happened to catch you in “the act” again.
“As if you aren’t?” LOL. Oh huh poopyhead!
What? You give yourself way too much credit. What have you contributed on this entire board at all?[/quote]
The same amount you do. Nothing. I never claimed to. Maybe the frustration I provided you can give you a glimpse of insight into how others feel with your constant belligerence and wordplay.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I don’t think that HeadHunter has a problem with charity, just with “forced” charity through the government. [/quote]
He comes off as having problem parting with his cash. Maybe I’m just getting him wrong.
Yes, but the fact that he’s using Katrina Relief as an example, and not, say, Halliburton’s shady Iraqi contracts as an example of governmental inefficiency is telling in itself.
Kicking ass in Iraq is worth the wasted cash; helping (mostly) poor blacks at home is not.
Yes. Calling the defrauded taxpayers the “Real victims” of Katrina is a bit much. It does get a reaction though.
The question is, of course, if without any government intervention at all, if the generosity of the public would be enough to help when major disasters strike. Especially if a large part of the victims happen to belong to some minority ethnic group.
You’re poor, black and in Deep Shit in the Deep South. Sound good to you?
Note that fraud could still occur while dealing with private enterprise. The Red Cross is not above having double-dealing swindlers in their midst.
Which might be a good thing for minorities, no?
I mean, the outpouring of compassion for 9/11 victims was a lot more overwhelming than for those of Katrina, even though there are many more of the latter.
I’m all for the least amount of government possible myself; but I also realise that it’s a necessary evil for society to function at all. At least, as we know it.
I’d rather look for ways to prevent fraud and increase governmental efficiency, rather than abolish the whole thing because it’s only 50 or 60% percent efficient…
[quote]btm62 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Are you only allowed to do that?
I just happened to catch you in “the act” again.
“As if you aren’t?” LOL. Oh huh poopyhead!
What? You give yourself way too much credit. What have you contributed on this entire board at all?
The same amount you do. Nothing. I never claimed to. Maybe the frustration I provided you can give you a glimpse of insight into how others feel with your constant belligerence and wordplay.
Buh bye[/quote]
Like I thought. You contribute nothing to this forum yet actually feel the need to follow me around. Has anyone ever said, “thank you, btm, for your advice?” Hell, even Zeb helps people regularly on the forum. Vroom has his beginner thread. What have you done? Has anyone ever asked you for anything? You aren’t causing any frustration at all. You seem rather pathetic. I had a choice to either ignore you again or ask you what it is you are doing in any positive way on this board. I am glad the only justification you get in life is following me around the board. Have fun with that.
