^ Whatever with all that… Stupid shit continues to spring up. In Anniston, Alabama, a black city councilman walked into a private business and threatened the owner with “maybe you won’t have any police or fire protection if you don’t take down your confederate flag”. This is what it is turning into. The little shit in South Carolina wanted to start a race war and he may get his wish if this kind of shit keeps going on. Violence is bound to ensue if someone walks into the wrong place and does this. Believe it or not we do have some people down here who don’t mind fighting.
smh It is appropriate for schools to be named after confederate leaders for no other reason than that is exactly what the Southern people want to do. Whether you like it or not, men like Bobby Lee were, are, and always will be heroes in the South. You can use your little catch phrase “fought for a nation created to blah blah blah” all you want to. It offends you. So what. Get over it. Don’t come down here.
A whole lot of my tax money is spent on shit that I don’t agree with and find down right repugnant. That is never going to change. As has been pointed out earlier, you don’t understand us. You think you do, but nope. I could personally care less what name they put on a school so long as it is put there by us and not some shithead from California or Ohio or anywhere else. A whole lot of what we do is done just to tell everybody else to kiss our ass.
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
A whole lot of what we do is done just to tell everybody else to kiss our ass.[/quote]
Like secession, for one. 
Interesting to imagine what Washington and Jefferson, a couple of very wealthy, slave-owning agrarian Virginians, would have said or done were they alive in 1860. Of course, we can sort of predict what Andrew Jackson (who owned 150 black slaves at the time of his death) would have said or done; a good part of his presidency was consumed by keeping South Carolina from walking out the first time around, but I wonder what his opinion of men like Jeff Davis and Abe Lincoln would have been.
AC post 1: short post, not directed at anyone.
SMH post 1 reply: you are stupid and absurd
AC reply: long post, in reply to being called stupid and absurd explaining that it’s not a black and white issue. Called you a libtard, cuz you called me stupid first.
SMH: ignored my long post for a day. After a prod, reasserted that I’m stupid and my post didn’t deserve a reply (yet replied)
AC: baited SMH a bit cuz I was boored and a little miffed that he called me/my post stupid
SMH: took bait. attempted to “end argument” in a paragraph, challenged the memory and motivations of one of my family members with the old, “unless you read his memoirs, you can’t be sure - he very well might have been a racist”, made a very convoluted ipso facto multiple step argument in a pathetic attempt to make me “see the light” that my great great grandfather’s memory was insulted because he fought for the south - again, shitting on one of my family members memory. He then proceeded to dress me down, insult me by mocking my understanding of the first amendment and compared the Confederate flag to a black panther flag and a known terrorist to Confederate generals.
AC: Blew his bullshit out of the water again by explaining the TENTH amendment prohibits everything about his entire argument (which is everything Confederate SHOULD be banned. (by who? the only one’s with the power to do so is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, so it’s reasonable to assume that’s what he wants). Called him on making assumptions about my family. Called him a retard and made a correlation to the Iraq war. Called him out for dodging a question about what HE would do (a question he has still not answered) implied his cowardice if he were to take his position in those times. Tit for tatted a few more times.
SMH: denied EVER saying he wanted a federal ban. Which is technically true, but who else has the power to enact the laws he proposes? Called me an idiot. Made some ridiculous comparisons about invading Finland. Accused me of being uncharitable by “forcing him to teach me the basics of thought and argument”. Took a quote out of context and told me “I need to get through this one on my own with out hand holding”. Called a perfectly fair comparison laughably bad and backpeddled his previous statement.
Called me a “weak and whiny cunt” (don’t remember whining about anything, or coming from a position of weakness, but whatever). Asserted that the Union army’s rape of the south had NOTHING at all to do with motivation southerners to fight against the north “it does not alter the great realities of history”. Again implied my great great grandfather was dishonorable by framing his motivations into HIS interpretation of history and not what happened. Condescendingly suggested I read parts of the Constitution again to “help me understand the simple and fundamental political principles of the country in which I live”, implying that I lack this basic understanding.
This about sums up the extent of our interaction: you threw a stone, then complained that I wasted your time… Methinks that is the greatest “logic-fail” of this thread…
SMH, Just an observation: when your default mode is to attack people, call them stupid, disrespect their family, refer to them as a “weak and whiney cunt”, and resort to personal attacks, it really shows that your argument doesn’t have much to stand on. If it did, you wouldn’t sink down to such a low level of distraction. You LED our discussion by calling my post (which wasn’t directed at you) stupid. So congratulations, I wasted a bit of your time by baiting you. I was on a call, waiting for clearance to begin a repair project getting paid double time, so I made roughly three or four hundred bucks while I was fucking with you - time well spent, in my book.
At any rate, here’s a site you might want to consider spending some more time on:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
AC: Blew his bullshit out of the water again by explaining the TENTH amendment prohibits everything about his entire argument (which is everything Confederate SHOULD be banned. (by who? the only one’s with the power to do so is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, so it’s reasonable to assume that’s what he wants).
[/quote]
This entire post was a cop-out. We all know what it means when a poster chooses to stop quoting and responding to the specifics of his opponent’s argument, opting instead for a fantastical (and fictive) retrospective and a bunch of whining about all the wrongs he’s had done to him. Your horrendous OIF analogy (which I made correct and which, in correct form, sinks the row-boat you’re trying to use to cross the Pacific), your failure to understand the text of the First Amendment – I’m not saying I blame you for pulling up and opting out of further substantive argument. I simply can’t let you do it without pointing and calling attention.
But the quoted excerpt above deserves to be corrected quickly: You are either not fully literate or you are aware that I have not proposed that “everything Confederate SHOULD be banned” (remember the part in which I taught you what the First Amendment says [reminder: it says nothing about Amazon’s decision to pull CSA merchandise], and the part in which I told you that I don’t care whether you fly CSA colors over your house?). You are either not fully literate or you are aware that I haven’t proposed that “the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” ban anything and, in fact, have explained multiple times that this discussion has to do with the merits or demerits of legislation proposed in California. Again: proposed in California. Again: proposed in California. Furthermore – as, again, I’ve already explained – my argument has from the very beginning been presented in moral/ethical, not legal, terms (remember the part about the $60,000 speeding ticket in Finland – about how I don’t want the U.S. military to conquer that country in order to fix things, even though I think it’s worthwhile to explain how and why such policies represent a betrayal of the Western democratic tradition?).
In light of the foregoing, when you claim yourself to have blown “[my] bullshit out of the water” by invoking your refutation of a set of arguments I’ve never made (and in fact have explicitly repudiated), you are face-planting in the most spectacular and visible way possible. Ice that shit before it swells and people start calling you Shrek.
One other stray observation: My initial words were, exactly:
[quote]
Your comparison is stupid and self-evidently absurd.[/quote]
This was somehow transmogrified, in your head, into SMH calling AC himself stupid and absurd. That’s your problem: The comparison was, in fact, very stupid and plainly absurd, and hereabouts we say unkind things to arguments and propositions that deserve to be treated unkindly.
Furthermore, this last post of yours is filled with sobs and whinges about my having called you names and having said mean things to you…as if it weren’t the case that we’ve been embroiled in an argument your end of which made use of terms like “fucking retard” (I was under the impression that this one tends to drop out of usage after the eighth or ninth grade, but I suppose not) and – laughably – “coward.” You say that you’re a conservative. You mock PC Lefists and victim culture. Well then, grow up, stop whining, stop keening about how you’re being victimized by a mean guy on the internet, and conduct yourself like an adult man. Again: Stop whining. Stop whining about words that a guy said to you during a debate in which you, too, were being something that we’ll call “less than cordial”. Stop pretending that I’ve “insulted” your family. You brought the guy up – if you didn’t want him to be part of this debate, you could have kept your mouth shut. Let’s get something clear, though: I don’t give a shit about your great, great grandfather, and I don’t give a shit about the magical protection-spell that you’ve fantasized to exist around family members you’ve never even met but whom you bring into arguments nonetheless. As I said, either you have direct evidence – as may well (and may well not) be the case – or you know jack and shit about his attitude toward the CSA and slavery. Either way, your great, great grandfather proves my point, for reasons that I’ve given and that you’ve not come within a hundred thousand miles of refuting.
Long story reduced: You aren’t some kind of special snowflake, and there are no PWI bylaws in accordance with which you must be treated with gentle tenderness even while acting like a loud and rambling idiot. And don’t link to a “manners” website after having used the term “retard” – it makes things too easy for me.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…this particular leg of our discussion has to do with the wisdom or folly of legislation proposed in the state of California…
[/quote]
No, it most certainly does not. This CA reference was one ONE post, by me. I, and others, have posted numerous absurdities. Let me repeat – numerous absurdities and I bet you one quintillion internet points more are on their way.
[/quote]
And this argument in which I’m involved is about my specific response to your specific post about legislation in California. You can go back and follow the progression if you wish.
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
smh It is appropriate for schools to be named after confederate leaders for no other reason than that is exactly what the Southern people want to do.[/quote]
Ah, got it.
I’ll use the “I wanna” argument from now on. It’s like a get out of criticism free card!
I wonder: Is Anwar Al-Awlaki Memorial High included? Is a Black Panther flag in flight above the New York State Capitol included? No objections would be raised in PWI? Be honest now.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
smh It is appropriate for schools to be named after confederate leaders for no other reason than that is exactly what the Southern people want to do.[/quote]
Ah, got it.
I’ll use the “I wanna” argument from now on. It’s like a get out of criticism free card!
I wonder: Is Anwar Al-Awlaki Memorial High included? Is a Black Panther flag in flight above the New York State Capitol included? No objections would be raised in PWI? Be honest now.[/quote]
Aside from it being absurd to name anything after a terrorist, he doesn’t have the same standing as Lee and the boys. Had the confederates been treated as traitors by the US govt after the war you and I would probably agree on this. But they weren’t. Lee, ect, have the same legal standing as Grant. You want to seperate the legal argument from this, but you really can’t. People do legal stuff that is stupid in my eyes all the time. Nothing you can do about it. I seperated the legal argument from it and gave you the opinionated and emotional response that you seem to want and that doesn’t suit you either. You seem to assume that your position is unassailable and that we are all stupid for disagreeing with you. But your position is simply the opinion of an offended person. My position is backed up legally. We can legally name schools whatever the fuck we want to.
I have agreed all along with the issue of the flag flying over a state capital building. We lost the war. We don’t operate under the confederate flag. We operate under OG and our state flag. If the battle flag is incorporated into a state flag, so be it. However, a full fledged confederate flag has no business flying over a state capital. If it is a memorial or historical display, fine.
With regard to the public display of the battle flag in general, I have a close friend who happens to be a black man and attended the mostly black Lee-Montgomery in our mostly black capital city. He and I discussed this at lunch Friday and he reminded me that the centerpiece of his office wall is a photo of him waving a full sized battle flag following a overtime state playoff game. He was pissed when LM took away the battle flag. He never gave a rats ass about the name. All they knew about LM was that it was synonymous with playing for state championships and he was honored to be a student there. The flag was just a symbol of their bad assery. Nothing else. So, he said you can kiss his ass too.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
AC: Blew his bullshit out of the water again by explaining the TENTH amendment prohibits everything about his entire argument (which is everything Confederate SHOULD be banned. (by who? the only one’s with the power to do so is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, so it’s reasonable to assume that’s what he wants).
[/quote]
This entire post was a cop-out. We all know what it means when a poster chooses to stop quoting and responding to the specifics of his opponent’s argument [/quote] It means I couldn’t get the quotes right, and I didn’t feel like fucking with it - something you had to edit yourself, genius[quote] , opting instead for a fantastical (and fictive) retrospective and a bunch of whining about all the wrongs he’s had done to him. Your horrendous OIF analogy (which I made correct and which, in correct form, sinks the row-boat you’re trying to use to cross the Pacific), your failure to understand the text of the First Amendment – I’m not saying I blame you for pulling up and opting out of further substantive argument. I simply can’t let you do it without pointing and calling attention.
[/quote]Oh, I’m not opting out, asshole. I was just pointing out that YOU threw the first stone. But fine, we can dispense with civil debate if that’s what you like and we can do this on the kindergarten playground. It’s ON, bitch![quote]
But the quoted excerpt above deserves to be corrected quickly: You are either not fully literate or you are aware that I have not proposed that “everything Confederate SHOULD be banned” (remember the part in which I taught you what the First Amendment says [/quote] You haven’t “taught” me shit, you fucking asshole. This is the part where I remind you and everyone else that you are nothing more that a faggot keyboard “warrior” (as if you understand that term) and would never in a million fucking years address me like that TO MY FACE. This is also the time where I would invite you to. Push has my number, get ahold of him and call me up, mutherfucker. See how big your balls are in person. [quote] [reminder: it says nothing about Amazon’s decision to pull CSA merchandise], and the part in which I told you that I don’t care whether you fly CSA colors over your house?). You are either not fully literate or you are aware that I haven’t proposed that “the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” ban anything and, in fact, have explained multiple times that this discussion has to do with the merits or demerits of legislation proposed in California. Again: proposed in California. Again: proposed in California. Furthermore – as, again, I’ve already explained – my argument has from the very beginning been presented in moral/ethical, not legal, terms (remember the part about the $60,000 speeding ticket in Finland – about how I don’t want the U.S. military to conquer that country in order to fix things, even though I think it’s worthwhile to explain how and why such policies represent a betrayal of the Western democratic tradition?).
[/quote]I believe you said to me EXACTLY,
“My argument has been, from the very beginning, that certain historical causes and figures are not appropriate for celebration on public property and with taxpayer money”.
Didn’t mention California there, did you? Oh, that’s right, YOU DIDN’T. So tell me, O great arbiter of what SHOULD and SHOULD NOT happen on EVERY CITIZEN’S property and with EVERY CITIZEN’S tax dollars, who is going to “enforce” what you feel “should” or “should not” happen? I’ll bet it would be THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION! They jump all over this kind of thing like stink on shit… Don’t they? So fuck you for crying that “I never said ‘legal’, I only meant ‘moral/ethical’”. Bullshit. With you lefties you NEVER stop until you get to “legal”, and I’ll fight your communist ass until my last breath!
[quote]
In light of the foregoing, when you claim yourself to have blown “[my] bullshit out of the water” by invoking your refutation of a set of arguments I’ve never made (and in fact have explicitly repudiated), you are face-planting in the most spectacular and visible way possible. Ice that shit before it swells and people start calling you Shrek.
[/quote]I’ll face plant your ass if you ever said that to my face, keyboard jockey. Coward. Faggot. I hope I meet you in person some day, cuz I’ll teach you what the word “respect” means and I’ll teach you the hard way. You’ll need more than ice, muther fucker, you’ll need stitches. Go ahead and pull my card, I DARE YOU.[quote]
One other stray observation: My initial words were, exactly:
[quote]
Your comparison is stupid and self-evidently absurd.[/quote]
This was somehow transmogrified, in your head, into SMH calling AC himself stupid and absurd. That’s your problem: The comparison was, in fact, very stupid and plainly absurd, and hereabouts we say unkind things to arguments and propositions that deserve to be treated unkindly.
[/quote]My “stray” observation: You’re backpedalling. You know you went out of your way to insult me and disrespect me with what you wrote. And what I wrote was not addressed to you. When you call something that someone wrote, “stupid” and “absurd”, you are IN EFFECT calling THEM stupid and absurd. For instance, you would NEVER in a million years say that to my face, would you? You’re an articulate guy, I’m sure you could find a more polite way to convey your dissatisfaction. But you chose to be a rude mutherfucker and rely on internet anonymity and spew off. Like a fucking COWARD [quote]
Furthermore, this last post of yours is filled with sobs and whinges about my having called you names and having said mean things to you…as if it weren’t the case that we’ve been embroiled in an argument your end of which made use of terms like “fucking retard” (I was under the impression that this one tends to drop out of usage after the eighth or ninth grade, but I suppose not) and – laughably – “coward.”
[/quote] I went with libtard and you escalated to “weak and whiney cunt” so what do you expect? I dare say if you were standing in front of me, you skinny little bitch, you would certainly not call me a “weak and whiney cunt” to my face. I’ll bet you a thousand dollars that you won’t. Cuz the ass kicking you would get would not be worth it.[quote] You say that you’re a conservative. You mock PC Lefists and victim culture. Well then, grow up, stop whining, stop keening about how you’re being victimized by a mean guy on the internet, and conduct yourself like an adult man.
[/quote]Listen, BITCH: I’ve been on my own since I was sixteen and have survived more shit in life than your pathetic little ass could comprehend. I will happily show you how an ADULT MAN treat’s an insolent child who doesn’t know his place. Please, give me the opportunity. I’ll buy your ticket. [quote]
Again: Stop whining. Stop whining about words that a guy said to you during a debate in which you, too, were being something that we’ll call “less than cordial”. Stop pretending that I’ve “insulted” your family.[/quote]You DID[quote] You brought the guy up – if you didn’t want him to be part of this debate, you could have kept your mouth shut. [/quote]I brought him us as an example of why people fought in the Civil War for OTHER than slavery. You then took it upon yourself to trash him by casting doubt upon that. YOU need to learn respect. If you brought up a family member to make your point, I most certainly would not trash the family member, only your argument. I have respect. You are nothing but a child and lack respect. [quote]
Let’s get something clear, though: I don’t give a shit about your great, great grandfather, and I don’t give a shit about the magical protection-spell that you’ve fantasized to exist around family members you’ve never even met but whom you bring into arguments nonetheless. As I said, either you have direct evidence – as may well (and may well not) be the case – or you know jack and shit about his attitude toward the CSA and slavery. Either way, your great, great grandfather proves my point, for reasons that I’ve given and that you’ve not come within a hundred thousand miles of refuting.
Long story reduced: You aren’t some kind of special snowflake, and there are no PWI bylaws in accordance with which you must be treated with gentle tenderness even while acting like a loud and rambling idiot[/quote] I never acted like a loud rambling idiot - YOU THREW THE FIRST STONE! YOU DREW FIRST BLOOD! Don’t put that on me, you fucking ignorant piece of shit. And PWI does have an unspoken rule that we should stick to the argument and not go personal. That rule is not always followed, but it is how civilized people have sane discourse. YOU violated that rule first.[quote] And don’t link to a “manners” website after having used the term “retard” – it makes things too easy for me.[/quote]
I’ll make things real easy for you. Call push and arrange a time and place half way between us. A secluded place. I’ll be there and you can have the opportunity to say that chickenshit keyboard warrior talk to my fucking face. Here’s one last piece of advice: Don’t disrespect the wrong people - it could turn out very ugly for you and what you hold dear.
Now go fuck yourself, faggot.
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
smh It is appropriate for schools to be named after confederate leaders for no other reason than that is exactly what the Southern people want to do.[/quote]
Ah, got it.
I’ll use the “I wanna” argument from now on. It’s like a get out of criticism free card!
I wonder: Is Anwar Al-Awlaki Memorial High included? Is a Black Panther flag in flight above the New York State Capitol included? No objections would be raised in PWI? Be honest now.[/quote]
Aside from it being absurd to name anything after a terrorist…[/quote]
Aside from it being absurd to name anything after the leader of a movement to break United States (and then defend the disunion in war against the United States, which country’s citizens’ property is under discussion) in defense of the legal chattelhood of black slaves…
[quote]
he doesn’t have the same standing as Lee and the boys.[/quote]
I don’t know what this means. You can choose to afford, in your opinion, “standing” to the people described in my foregoing paragraph. Other people can choose to afford, in their opinion, “standing” to Anwar Al-Awlaki. Both groups are being absurd, but that’s beside the point. You said that, and I quote, “It is appropriate for schools to be named after confederate leaders for no other reason than that is exactly what the Southern people want to do.” For no other reason than that is exactly what the Southern people want to do. Well, these people want to name a public school after Anwar Al-Awlaki. By your lights, it is unambiguously appropriate. This is simple mechanics.
[quote]
Had the confederates been treated as traitors by the US govt after the war you and I would probably agree on this. But they weren’t. Lee, ect, have the same legal standing as Grant. You want to seperate the legal argument from this, but you really can’t. People do legal stuff that is stupid in my eyes all the time. Nothing you can do about it. I seperated the legal argument from it and gave you the opinionated and emotional response that you seem to want and that doesn’t suit you either. You seem to assume that your position is unassailable and that we are all stupid for disagreeing with you. But your position is simply the opinion of an offended person. My position is backed up legally. We can legally name schools whatever the fuck we want to.[/quote]
I am not saying that it is illegal for a public school to be named after a Confederate leader. If I were making that statement of fact, you could very easily link to the Wikipedia page of such an existing school, and this conversation would be over. What I am saying is that it is inappropriate and stupid for a public school to be named after a Confederate leader, and therefore that the legislation proposed in California – with which item of news this particular debate began – is reasonable policy. It is strange how much time I have had to spend re-explaining what it is I’ve been plainly saying for pages upon pages.
And I don’t think anyone in this thread is stupid. I have argued against basically each of my favorite posters. Push, TB, USMC, Aragorn, a moment or two of Varq. And you-- I don’t recall interacting with you before, but you seem to be an intelligent and worthwhile opponent. All of my strong words are about the issue. Yes, I have strong (and strongly expressed) opinions about it, but yes, I understand that others think differently. Don’t forget that with an issue like, say, abortion, most of the posters around here believe – and explicitly say – that the people who disagree with them are at least ideologically complicit in genocide. My belief that my detractors here are being absurd is not exactly a pox on their immortal souls.
[quote]
I have a close friend who happens to be a black man[/quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
AC: Blew his bullshit out of the water again by explaining the TENTH amendment prohibits everything about his entire argument (which is everything Confederate SHOULD be banned. (by who? the only one’s with the power to do so is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, so it’s reasonable to assume that’s what he wants).
[/quote]
This entire post was a cop-out. We all know what it means when a poster chooses to stop quoting and responding to the specifics of his opponent’s argument [/quote] It means I couldn’t get the quotes right, and I didn’t feel like fucking with it - something you had to edit yourself, genius[quote] , opting instead for a fantastical (and fictive) retrospective and a bunch of whining about all the wrongs he’s had done to him. Your horrendous OIF analogy (which I made correct and which, in correct form, sinks the row-boat you’re trying to use to cross the Pacific), your failure to understand the text of the First Amendment – I’m not saying I blame you for pulling up and opting out of further substantive argument. I simply can’t let you do it without pointing and calling attention.
[/quote]Oh, I’m not opting out, asshole. I was just pointing out that YOU threw the first stone. But fine, we can dispense with civil debate if that’s what you like and we can do this on the kindergarten playground. It’s ON, bitch![quote]
But the quoted excerpt above deserves to be corrected quickly: You are either not fully literate or you are aware that I have not proposed that “everything Confederate SHOULD be banned” (remember the part in which I taught you what the First Amendment says [/quote] You haven’t “taught” me shit, you fucking asshole. This is the part where I remind you and everyone else that you are nothing more that a faggot keyboard “warrior” (as if you understand that term) and would never in a million fucking years address me like that TO MY FACE. This is also the time where I would invite you to. Push has my number, get ahold of him and call me up, mutherfucker. See how big your balls are in person. [quote] [reminder: it says nothing about Amazon’s decision to pull CSA merchandise], and the part in which I told you that I don’t care whether you fly CSA colors over your house?). You are either not fully literate or you are aware that I haven’t proposed that “the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” ban anything and, in fact, have explained multiple times that this discussion has to do with the merits or demerits of legislation proposed in California. Again: proposed in California. Again: proposed in California. Furthermore – as, again, I’ve already explained – my argument has from the very beginning been presented in moral/ethical, not legal, terms (remember the part about the $60,000 speeding ticket in Finland – about how I don’t want the U.S. military to conquer that country in order to fix things, even though I think it’s worthwhile to explain how and why such policies represent a betrayal of the Western democratic tradition?).
[/quote]I believe you said to me EXACTLY,
“My argument has been, from the very beginning, that certain historical causes and figures are not appropriate for celebration on public property and with taxpayer money”.
Didn’t mention California there, did you? Oh, that’s right, YOU DIDN’T. So tell me, O great arbiter of what SHOULD and SHOULD NOT happen on EVERY CITIZEN’S property and with EVERY CITIZEN’S tax dollars, who is going to “enforce” what you feel “should” or “should not” happen? I’ll bet it would be THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION! They jump all over this kind of thing like stink on shit… Don’t they? So fuck you for crying that “I never said ‘legal’, I only meant ‘moral/ethical’”. Bullshit. With you lefties you NEVER stop until you get to “legal”, and I’ll fight your communist ass until my last breath!
[quote]
In light of the foregoing, when you claim yourself to have blown “[my] bullshit out of the water” by invoking your refutation of a set of arguments I’ve never made (and in fact have explicitly repudiated), you are face-planting in the most spectacular and visible way possible. Ice that shit before it swells and people start calling you Shrek.
[/quote]I’ll face plant your ass if you ever said that to my face, keyboard jockey. Coward. Faggot. I hope I meet you in person some day, cuz I’ll teach you what the word “respect” means and I’ll teach you the hard way. You’ll need more than ice, muther fucker, you’ll need stitches. Go ahead and pull my card, I DARE YOU.[quote]
One other stray observation: My initial words were, exactly:
Two notes:
-
You have your chronology off. I used the “weak and whiny cunt” line in response to your post in which you alleged me to be a “coward” and a “fucking retard.” But perhaps I was wrong – perhaps your contract demands far more than a once-per-argument performance.
-
Thank you – thank you for this. Really. This is unadulterated gold, every word of it. Let’s meet in the field behind school after the 9th period bell rings. Don’t you dare let any teachers get wind of it.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Two notes:
-
You have your chronology off. I used the “weak and whiny cunt” line in response to your post in which you alleged me to be a “coward” and a “fucking retard.” But perhaps I was wrong – perhaps that contract demands far more than a once-per-argument performance.
-
Thank you – thank you for this. Really. This is unadulterated gold, every word of it. Let’s meet in the field behind school after the 9th period bell rings. Don’t you dare let any teachers get wind of it.[/quote]
LOL That’s what I thought. I just got off the phone with Push. He actually told me that he’s watched you evolve over the years from far Left toward the Right. But whatever - you still never learned how to talk people. You’re a smart kid who should know that words have meaning and that you should watch what you say lest you offend the wrong person. You ought to figure that one out before your mouth writes a check your body can’t cash. But again, I can’t imagine you’d ever speak to people in real life the way you’ve spoken to me in this thread. Offer is still on the table any time you want to take the gloves off. Since you’ve “taught” me so much about logic, and the first amendment, etc… I’d be happy to “teach” you a little about manners. But who are we kidding? You’ll never make that phone call and we both know it. BECAUSE YOU ARE A COWARD. And like a cowardly child, you don’t want to face the consequences of your actions.
So have fun typing away in the safety of your castle. Free from repercussions or consequences. Free to live in your fantasy land where you can say whatever you want to whoever you want. Childish little Bitch.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Two notes:
-
You have your chronology off. I used the “weak and whiny cunt” line in response to your post in which you alleged me to be a “coward” and a “fucking retard.” But perhaps I was wrong – perhaps that contract demands far more than a once-per-argument performance.
-
Thank you – thank you for this. Really. This is unadulterated gold, every word of it. Let’s meet in the field behind school after the 9th period bell rings. Don’t you dare let any teachers get wind of it.[/quote]
LOL That’s what I thought. I just got off the phone with Push. He actually told me that he’s watched you evolve over the years from far Left toward the Right. But whatever - you still never learned how to talk people. You’re a smart kid who should know that words have meaning and that you should watch what you say lest you offend the wrong person. You ought to figure that one out before your mouth writes a check your body can’t cash. But again, I can’t imagine you’d ever speak to people in real life the way you’ve spoken to me in this thread. Offer is still on the table any time you want to take the gloves off. Since you’ve “taught” me so much about logic, and the first amendment, etc… I’d be happy to “teach” you a little about manners. But who are we kidding? You’ll never make that phone call and we both know it. BECAUSE YOU ARE A COWARD. And like a cowardly child, you don’t want to face the consequences of your actions.
So have fun typing away in the safety of your castle. Free from repercussions or consequences. Free to live in your fantasy land where you can say whatever you want to whoever you want. Childish little Bitch.[/quote]
Yes, I genuinely like Push, and I believe he genuinely likes me. We – he and I – have also said tons of uncharitable things to each other (as has everybody else hereabouts) in the context of arguing about matters dear to our hearts. Somehow we managed not to descend into the empty and literally ridiculous (they inspire the desire to ridicule) threats of a high school sophomore. I say this without exaggeration: That you would actually meet someone in order to fight out a political internet debate is one of the more pathetic notions I’ve encountered in years, if not my entire life.
As for the relative size of our balls, note that only one of us is trembling with empty eagerness here. Whether this gap in insecurity has to do with what our personal lives are like, what we each do for a living, or some other difference – this is an open question. What is not questionable is the underlying meaning of it all.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Two notes:
-
You have your chronology off. I used the “weak and whiny cunt” line in response to your post in which you alleged me to be a “coward” and a “fucking retard.” But perhaps I was wrong – perhaps that contract demands far more than a once-per-argument performance.
-
Thank you – thank you for this. Really. This is unadulterated gold, every word of it. Let’s meet in the field behind school after the 9th period bell rings. Don’t you dare let any teachers get wind of it.[/quote]
LOL That’s what I thought. I just got off the phone with Push. He actually told me that he’s watched you evolve over the years from far Left toward the Right. But whatever - you still never learned how to talk people. You’re a smart kid who should know that words have meaning and that you should watch what you say lest you offend the wrong person. You ought to figure that one out before your mouth writes a check your body can’t cash. But again, I can’t imagine you’d ever speak to people in real life the way you’ve spoken to me in this thread. Offer is still on the table any time you want to take the gloves off. Since you’ve “taught” me so much about logic, and the first amendment, etc… I’d be happy to “teach” you a little about manners. But who are we kidding? You’ll never make that phone call and we both know it. BECAUSE YOU ARE A COWARD. And like a cowardly child, you don’t want to face the consequences of your actions.
So have fun typing away in the safety of your castle. Free from repercussions or consequences. Free to live in your fantasy land where you can say whatever you want to whoever you want. Childish little Bitch.[/quote]
Yes, I genuinely like Push, and I believe he genuinely likes me. We – he and I – have also said tons of uncharitable things to each other (as has everybody else hereabouts) in the context of arguing about matters dear to our hearts. Somehow we managed not to descend into the empty and literally ridiculous (they inspire the desire to ridicule) threats of a high school sophomore. I say this without exaggeration: That you would actually meet someone in order to fight out a political internet debate is one of the more pathetic notions I’ve encountered in years, if not my entire life.
As for the relative size of our balls, note that only one of us is trembling with empty eagerness here. Whether this gap in insecurity has to do with what our personal lives are like, what we each do for a living, or some other difference – this is an open question. What is not questionable is the underlying meaning of it all.[/quote]
Don’t get the facts twisted. I would never meet someone to fight out an internet debate. This stopped being an internet debate when you piled disrespect on top of disrespect and called me a “weak and whiney cunt”. THAT’S why I would enjoy the opportunity to kick your ass, (or should I say, give you the opportunity to say it to my face in person - not that you ever would) not because I give two fucks about your opinion on the stupid flag. Most people over 35 would agree you crossed a line, son. At least in my little brain you did.
You and I have been posting here for a while. I am not some internet troll and neither are you. We’ve been reading each other’s posts for years now. So I have to assume that level of disrespect comes from a legitimate place in your heart. So, if you have THAT much of an issue with me that you would say what you said, I think it’s only fair that you say it to my face. Unless, of course, you won’t say it to my face… Which makes you a fucking coward and normally beneath my consideration. But God gave me two gifts: I can fuck and I can fight, and I love to do both. I would relish the opportunity to shut your fucking mouth with my fist and break something so that you had to think about me for six weeks and whenever it rained thereafter. That thought gives me great satisfaction. Not because I disagree with you politically, but because you disrespected me. Again. And again. That might make me an asshole, but at least I’m honest.
But you think that’s pathetic, do you? Know what I think? Your fucking mouth hiding behind your ergonomically correct keyboard is one of the most pathetic things I’ve encountered in my life. Keep it up, keyboard jockey. Everyone knows that you’d have to be carried away if you and I ever met in real life and you dared to speak to me the way you have, and continue to do, in this thread.
Then you have the gall to bring my personal life and what I do for a living into this? I’m the top one percent of the top one percent in my trade and I make 250K a year, asshole. I live in the Shenandoah mountains and fly my fucking Confederate flag on my porch and my neighbors love it. I have a deer stand in my back yard and one ton Chevy diesel truck with a six inch lift in the driveway (I butt fucked your mom in the back seat while your dad watched from his Ford) What do you do? Teach? LMMFAO!
I guess you’ve “progressed” beyond accountability. Just like the rest of you flaming liberals. I grew up before the internet. I grew up where you got your ass kicked if you disrespected the wrong person, so I learned manners. I learned the difference between “you fucking retard” and “you weak and whiney cunt”. The former I can say to my friends in a discussion. The latter are fighting words. If you don’t learn anything else from this thoroughly derailed thread, learn THAT.
(in case you don’t get the “I butt fucked your mom” reference)
Meanwhile, the shooter in Tennessee wasn’t radicalized (don’t call a terrorist a terrorist in this country!!), he was just depressed.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I learned the difference between “you fucking retard” and “you weak and whiney cunt”. The former I can say to my friends in a discussion. The latter are fighting words.
[/quote]
Agreed. However, “coward” – which term you also used before I threw in my Chaucerian vulgarity – is indeed in the same class as the latter. So your entire argument about my having been the one to cross some sort of sacred line is, predictably, nonsense. That you allowed yourself to be thrown into such a catastrophic tantrum proves beyond the possibility of doubt that you are, indeed, a weak and whiny cunt.
As for this:
[quote]
Everyone knows that you’d have to be carried away if you and I ever met in real life and you dared to speak to me the way you have, and continue to do, in this thread.[/quote]
And this:
[quote]
I make 250K a year, asshole.[/quote]
(^ Note that when I mentioned our professions along with our personal lives, I was trying to figure out why you are so pitiably insecure as to descend into empty, high-school level whining and pants-shitting during an internet debate. I was referring not to your salary, about which I don’t give a shit [Aside: I think you’re a liar on top of everything else, so I don’t know why you’d think I’d pay attention]. I was instead referring to the possibility that yours leaves you with the needling suspicion that you’re a pussy. After all, you are keen enough on “warriors” to question whether I understand the term, and yet you aren’t one. My profession – which is not teaching – does not inspire such insecurity. Again, though, this is only a guess. Maybe you simply have an unnaturally small penis.)
And, emphatically, this:
[quote]
But God gave me two gifts: I can fuck and I can fight, and I love to do both.[/quote]
…You’re joking, right? Or did you actually hammer “God gave me two gifts: I can fuck and I can fight” into a keyboard, while also accusing someone else of being a “keyboard warrior”? Please stop: If you keep this up, people are going to start thinking that I have two accounts and am pushing one off the deep end of hilarious parody in order to grant a false-flag victory to the other. I don’t want to be suspected of such chicanery.