1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by KrazyK923 View Post
    Conception =/= ejaculation.
    I didn't say it did. I said most christian organizations don't believe in contraceptives because the bible says to 'multiply and be fruitful' and most dont believe in abortion because they think that life begins at Conception.

    PS -> The bible also says it is better to ejaculate in a whore than to masturbate, so how so many can be against extra-marital sex I just don't know! :P

  2. #222
    When does it become a "random point"? When you type it? Or when someone points out that it's wrong? Or not until they ask for proof?
    When its relevant.


    Wells, it's nothing personal with you. You have a history of asking people to provide proof for their claims. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just asking that you do the same.
    When the debate is worthwhile I do.

  3. #223
    You said I pick on random points that you make. I asked when your points become "random." And you reply that points become random
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    When its relevant.
    That makes no sense. Anyways, perhaps I hold my own prose in too high regard, but none of my points are random. Feel free to question me on the veracity or relevancy of any of them. And I've been in plenty of heated and not so heated discussions on here, and haven't come across anyone that is so quick to relegate their own points to "random" status as you are.

  4. #224
    You said I pick on random points that you make.
    For instance, you brought up a post of mine from june because of a different wording. Or the 20 pages you wasted on Bush and Osama.

    Your MO is to find a single tiny thing you can harp on, usually a word you choose to take as literally as possible and then hound on it until no one wants to bother. You routinely ignore the actual substance of arguments, like when we were discussing electoral strategy a few weeks back and you wanted to go on and on about 2010 and 2010 only, ignoring the point I was making until you made my argument for me.

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    For instance, you brought up a post of mine from june because of a different wording.
    No, to show that you have a pattern of saying things that aren't true.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    a guy who can become wealthy from as shitty a background as Obama sounds like a plus when I'm picking someone to be our leader.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Obama grew up in poverty for much of his life.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Not as wealthy as Romney of course, but he came from extremely humble backgrounds.
    And I simply asked what about Obama's background can be considered as poverty, shitty, or extremely humble. This is a point you have made repeatedly, both previously and today, about a Democratic candidate for president in a thread about Democratic candidates for president. It's relevant and current. So why not answer the question?

  6. #226
    Errr. Shitty, Poverty, and Extremely Humble are in no way mutually exclusive. Or even partially exclusive. In fact they all seem pretty related.

  7. #227
    Yeah see when I was talking about a debate worth having explaining information that's on the first section of the man's wiki page wasn't the kind of stuff I was talking about.

    You're a smart enough guy. You know the man's biography. This isn't a point of interest or serious debate.

    So maybe we could discuss electoral strategy? Policy? Things of substance? The kind of stuff you seem to avoid in favor of this crap?

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Yeah see when I was talking about a debate worth having explaining information that's on the first section of the man's wiki page wasn't the kind of stuff I was talking about.
    You're a smart enough guy. You know the man's biography. This isn't a point of interest or serious debate.
    Ok, so I'll change the question to where on the front page of Obama's Wikipedia entry is there evidence that his background or upbringing could be considered as poverty, shitty, or extremely humble. This is a point you have made repeatedly, both previously and today, about a Democratic candidate for president in a thread about Democratic candidates for president. It's relevant and current. So why not answer the question?

    If it's not a point of interest or warranting of serious debate...here's a tip Wells, THEN DON'T SAY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

  9. #229
    If it's not a point of interest or warranting of serious debate...here's a tip Wells, THEN DON'T SAY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
    sorry I assume people will address my actual arguments instead of every random word. I'll know better next time you're in the thread.

    I gave you a source Merkava, if you don't want to read it or whatever then fine, but I'm out of shits to give.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 09:36 AM ----------

    Here's another for you as well

    http://www.barack-obama-timeline.com/

    Bounced around, got into drugs, periods of having not a lot of money, absent father, etc etc etc.

    But you already knew about all this, you're just being difficult in an attempt to win e-points.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    sorry I assume people will address my actual arguments instead of every random word. I'll know better next time you're in the thread.
    Actual arguments? Do you mean like arguing that Andrew Breitbart is guilty of extorting Anthony Weiner? Still waiting for the NY district attorney to hold the press conference announcing that charges have been filed. Or do you mean like your argument that Newt Gingrich's wife was riddled with cancer when he divorced her? You refused to provide a citation for that one because it was such a "common, base level of knowledge." Oh and I almost forgot, you changed your point to "Newt Gingrich thought she had cancer.

    Oh wait, newsflash, Wells edited his post. It would appear that he wants to discuss his "random point" that was previously not worthy of " interest or serious debate." Too bad your link does nothing to support your statement. Has a goofy relationship with his father? So does Lindsay Lohan. Kid at prestigious prep school does drugs to fit in? Poor baby. Doesn't have much money? You mean he can't ask his grandma, who he's living with for money? She was only the first female vice-president at the Bank of Hawaii. Or maybe you meant he didn't have much money during the 3 1/2 years that he lived in Indonesia. The link you provided said that "In Indonesia Barack Obama becomes familiar with poverty, beggars, and children dying from illnesses." Wikipedia however, says this of his time in Indonesia


    "In October 1967, Obama and his mother moved to Jakarta to rejoin his stepfather. Obama, his mother and his stepfather initially lived in a rented house at 16 Kyai Haji Ramli Tengah Street in a newly built neighborhood in the Menteng Dalam administrative village of the Tebet subdistrict in South Jakarta for two and a half years, with his stepfather working on a topographic survey for the Indonesian government. From January 1968 to December 1969, Obama's mother taught English and was an assistant director of the U.S. government-subsidized Indonesia-America Friendship Institute, while Obama attended the Indonesian-language Santo Fransiskus Asisi (St. Francis of Assisi) Catholic School around the corner from their house for 1st, 2nd, and part of 3rd grade.

    In 1970, Obama's stepfather's financial situation was improved by a new job in Union Oil Company's government relations office, and the family moved two miles north to 22 Taman Amir Hamzah Street in the Matraman Dalam neighborhood in the Pegangsaan administrative village of the Menteng subdistrict in Central Jakarta. From January 1970 to August 1972, Obama's mother taught English and was a department head and a director of the Institute of Management Education and Development, while Obama attended the Indonesian-language government-run Besuki School, one and half miles east in the exclusive Menteng administrative village, for part of 3rd grade and for 4th grade, and was a Cub Scout. In mid-1970, between 3rd and 4th grades at the Besuki School, Obama spent the summer in Hawaii with his maternal grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, and interviewed for admission to the Punahou School in Honolulu.


    Living in newly built administrative neighborhoods, attending exclusive private schools, Cub Scouts, father working for the government, mother working with US subsidized program, summers in Hawaii. Sounds awful.

    In the future, when you link to cites that do nothing to support your argument (nothing against the fair and unbiased people over at http://www.barack-obama-timeline.com) can you at least make it interesting? Maybe something with nude celebs preferably?
    Last edited by Merkava; 2012-02-07 at 10:46 AM.

  11. #231
    See here you took a statement that was fairly vague, decided what you wanted it to mean, and then attacked that. I never said he was poor all his life, never said nothing ever went his way. Your selections don't disprove anything.

    Which is pretty much you I guess. I mean shit, you somehow thing that bring up Weiner means something. In a thread about Obama, when responding to a discussion about Obama. Or the Gingrich thing, where i gave you a source and you hand waved it away.

    But its ok, I know you love me anyway.

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by bobthenailer View Post
    4 more years barry soetoro or obama or whatever his name is will destroy the United States. He will destroy all of our constitutional rights should he be elected into office once more. He has already destroyed our right to trial... he can lock us away without trial at this very moment if he wanted. He signed that bill right last month. BHO is ineligible to serve anyways his biological father was a British subject in Kenya. You can't be a natural born citizen unless both your parents are citizens.

    What this country really needs is no political parties because they mostly just breed corruption and no representation for the people. America needs leaders who won't bow to the Chicoms or the King of Saud.

    America needs leaders who will enforce our borders, language (english) and culture. Which is what defines a nation.
    Our constitutional rights were forfeit the moment the horde of the American people BEGGED for something like the Patriot Act to be implemented. That's the day the constitution died. Everything else after that wondrous day in history is the final death throws of a freshly rotting corpse. We'll see such jerks and twitches for the next ten to twenty years, no doubt, but I assure you... it's already dead, and has been, for at least six years.

    Also, not to be too unfair, the Fed was to the constitution as cancer is to a human being. It's pretty much death, it MIGHT not kill you, it WILL take awhile, but it was certainly a cancer. Sadly, a cancer at the time that everyone was again BEGGING for.

    Hindsight 20/20 baby. All the way.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    See here you took a statement that was fairly vague, decided what you wanted it to mean, and then attacked that. I never said he was poor all his life, never said nothing ever went his way.
    You never told me what your statement meant. When pressed for an explanation, you linked to Wikipedia. When that failed, you linked to http://www.barack-obama-timeline.com. When that failed, you say your statement was vague. Well again, what exactly did you mean when you said he grew up in poverty for much of his life? Or that he had a shitty background? Or that he had an extremely humble background? He's your hero, not mine. Let's hear what you have to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Which is pretty much you I guess. I mean shit, you somehow thing that bring up Weiner means something. In a thread about Obama, when responding to a discussion about Obama. Or the Gingrich thing, where i gave you a source and you hand waved it away.
    It's not about me. It's about you. And the fact that you say things that aren't true. Provide evidence or nude pics of Kat Dennings. Enlighten or entertain. The choice is yours.

  14. #234
    Quote Originally Posted by Merkava View Post
    No, to show that you have a pattern of saying things that aren't true.



    And I simply asked what about Obama's background can be considered as poverty, shitty, or extremely humble. This is a point you have made repeatedly, both previously and today, about a Democratic candidate for president in a thread about Democratic candidates for president. It's relevant and current. So why not answer the question?

    I mean, what defines poverty at this moment? It's already been stated by the Feds that our American level of poverty isn't even actually poverty, as for the most part "poor" people aren't lacking food, electricity, water, or a house to live in. We just don't have three cars, an X-Box 360 AND a PS3, we might just be able to afford Wii.

    Hell I'm a fucking impoverished family, and I've got the internet and I home school all six of my sons on an entire network run through my house. We have a garden, we have pets, we have a Wii, we never go starving, we have a roof over our heads. We're still by EVERY FORM OF WEALTH KNOWN! Considered "poor" by American standards.

    Also I don't get what's so great about having a person who was ACTUALLY HOMELESS running as a President of the United States.
    If you take Obama and compare his ass to George W or Kennedy, or Reagan, as far as presidents go you're fucking right he came from poor standards.
    He wasn't born rich, he wasn't born DESPERATE either.

    Castro was born desperate. As was Saddam. As was Hitler. The list goes on and on and on about desperate people gaining power.

    Also for the record, truly desperate people never win by playing the game, they win through force... Because they're DESPERATE.

  15. #235
    You never told me what your statement meant.
    Maybe because it was an entirely subjective statement, as you so clearly showed in your last post?

    When that failed, you say your statement was vague. Well again, what exactly did you mean when you said he grew up in poverty for much of his life? Or that he had a shitty background? Or that he had an extremely humble background?
    I've already explained this thanks.


    It's not about me. It's about you. And the fact that you say things that aren't true.
    heheheh.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 10:58 AM ----------

    You know if in almost 7000 posts I've said two things that are wrong I think I can live with that. Especially given the rather creepy way you seem to follow me on this board.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I've already explained this thanks.
    .
    No you didn't. You derided your own points, calling them random and not worthy of discussion, you tried to distract from the subject by questioning me, you appealed to moderators for help, you provided links to sites general (Wikipedia) and biased (barack-obama-timeline.com) that do nothing to support your statements, you derided your own points some more calling them vague, you attempt to move the goalposts ("I never said nothing ever went his way"), and finally say your original statement was subjective. But at no point whatsoever did you provide any evidence for your claims or attempt to explain them.

    Ok fine. I give up. It's subjective. What a pathetically juvenile defense. But it must be true because everyone knows George Bush had a shitty background too, what with his alcohol abuse and the fact that he grew up in poverty for much of his life (compared to the Sultan of Brunei).

  17. #237
    biased (barack-obama-timeline.com)
    Why do you say this?

    But at no point whatsoever did you provide any evidence for your claims or attempt to explain them.
    I certainly did. You hand waved them away with terms of "poor baby" and "so does Lindsay Lohan", whatever she has to do with this.

    I never intended it as a debate point. That's why they're not serious statements, rather vague subjective ones. You see how this works?

    Ok fine. I give up.
    So following the Merkava rules of debate I win?

    Or would you like me to provide links showing 6,898 is sufficiently close to 7000 to use the subjective term "almost"? 20 pages of debating how much you think I'm wrong to say "almost 7000"?

  18. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    I never intended it as a debate point. That's why they're not serious statements, rather vague subjective ones. You see how this works?
    Yea, I see how it works. And I'm sure everyone else on here does too. You say something stupid and I tell you you're wrong. And the cycle starts. You give links that do nothing, praying that I won't read them; you beg the moderators for help; you try to get me banned for sarcasm; you move the goalposts; and now this new one; you'd rather destroy your own post than admit that you're wrong. You refer to your statements as vague and not serious. You make the ridiculous claim that your "point was never intended as a debate point". You got me banned for calling you pathetic before, so this time I'll simply say that I find that your position has the capacity to move me to either compassionate or contemptuous pity and is pitifully inferior or inadequate.

  19. #239
    Brewmaster Shon237's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Funkytown
    Posts
    1,494
    I voted for Obama first go around. As far as his first term has gone it has been quite dissapointing. One one side I understand that the las idiot..I mean President got us into a crap load of trouble. Wars mainly and the ecomony to be fair you can't always blame on just one President in my opnion. President Bush did get us into a war while cutting taxes on the very rich and also not the biggest fan of de-regulation which they are alot of people to blame.

    Along comes President Obama. Again I think he missed the boat in trying to first get his Health Care pushed across instead of doing more getting jobs and economy going. I'm again for universal health care but just the wrong time to do it. What I liked about Obama was that he was trying to find the middle road yet the Republicans fought him on everything. So I feel bad for the guy yet then again I think he didn't do a great job of fighting for things. Shoot at Bush rammed crap through even if it was not popular. My least favorite thing is Obama has been really weak. Like lately (just so happens to be an election year, go figure) he talks tough about getting job bills signed yet, nothing. Really frustrating..yes I know Republicans are of no help. My opinion of course. On the foreign policy he has definately been unbelievable with killin of Osama and getting us out of the two wars as much as possible.

    So I guess while I have not really been the bigest fan of what Obama has done he is much better than the Republican candidates. I won't start a flame fest here but I'll just say much of what the Republican candidates have said and done I'm not a fan of their ideas. I like Ron Pauls view on foriegn policy of isolationism but he goes to far in his libertarian views. So Obama for 2012.
    Last edited by Shon237; 2012-02-07 at 01:21 PM.

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by Merkava View Post
    Yea, I see how it works. And I'm sure everyone else on here does too. You say something stupid and I tell you you're wrong. And the cycle starts. You give links that do nothing, praying that I won't read them; you beg the moderators for help; you try to get me banned for sarcasm; you move the goalposts; and now this new one; you'd rather destroy your own post than admit that you're wrong. You refer to your statements as vague and not serious. You make the ridiculous claim that your "point was never intended as a debate point". You got me banned for calling you pathetic before, so this time I'll simply say that I find that your position has the capacity to move me to either compassionate or contemptuous pity and is pitifully inferior or inadequate.
    Maybe you just took my point more literally and importantly than I did? This is kind of what happens when you ignore a whole argument in favor of nit picking. And I'm not even saying I'm wrong, just that its dumb to put so much importance on a minor point.

    You've been banned before for breaking rules. How you choose to interpret that is up to you. I haven't reported you this thread so stop whining about it.
    Last edited by Wells; 2012-02-07 at 08:03 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •