So What Are You Gonna Do About It? (For the government and coprorate malfesance threads)


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

As a hillbilly monkey, I for one welcome our new pony overlord.

Can we rename Massachusetts Fecalvania?


As a West Assylvanian, I too, welcome our Equine overlord. As an aside, is there an East Assylvania?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I am ready, willing, and able to serve as a dictator. I won't even lie to you about being a benevolent dictator. Oh no. I will be petty and capricious, slaughtering hundreds of thousands to build my gold plated palace on top of the St. Louis Arch

I didn't know Cheney played pathfinder...

Sovereign Court

Ill tell yas what I do. I take all my junk mail with those credit card, mortgage, magazine subscription offers with postage paid envelopes and mail those puppies back empty.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Which is why postage costs so much now. :)

Sczarni

I use my Kali-granted power to tear the hearts from the chests of my enemies (and followers who piss me off), then feed their sorry asses to a volcano.

Kali-ma!


Solidarity forever!

Sczarni

The Nike in India will be slaughtered. Then we will overrun the Walmartians and force their Super Centers to bow to Kali. And then the Fedex will fall and finally Capitalism will be cast down and forgotten.

Kali-ma!


All praises be unto Kali!

Rat-a-tat-tat!

Boom!

Liberty's Edge

http://www.factcheck.org/

Sczarni

Bah! All truth comes from Kali!

Bali Mangthi Kali Ma.

Shakthi Degi Kali Ma.

Kali ma... Kali ma... Kali ma, shakthi deh!


Sieglord wrote:
Hudax wrote:
Quote:
Vote wisely. Listen patiently. Debate courteously. Reasearch regularly.

Vote democrat.

Try to figure out why anyone wouldn't vote democrat.
Try to persuade people to vote democrat.
Show people why they should vote democrat.

...as though "Democrat" were somehow any different than "Republican"...

"The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so the that American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

Prof. Carrol Quigley, "Tragedy and Hope"

My emphasis.

I agree this is the way it should be, but is not the way things are.

Presently, the Democratic and Republican parties are almost diametrically opposed. The only thing that would make them total opposites is if the dems would grow a backbone and tow a party line of "yes" to counter the rep party line of "no." I'm certainly not saying the dems have all the answers. But they have answers other than "no." They have answers that don't involve them going on record saying they'd prefer to destroy the economy than sacrifice their ideology in the slightest way.

Every republican in office tows the party line perfectly. All votes since Obama was elected have been virtually down the party line, with very few exceptions. Their stance is completely irrational, completely founded on an anti-Obama platform. They have nothing to offer besides "no." They are firmly entrenched in a political agenda that is contrary to the interests of 99% of Americans, and they sit there unmoving without caring if the entire country burns down around them. This they do purely in a prolonged attempt to discredit Obama, so they can retake the presidency in 2012. This is the political agenda of insane people who care nothing about the state of the country, only that they have control.

It would be nice if some small amount of research were necessary to distinguish between candidates. Currently, however, you know exactly what you're going to get with every (R) on the ballot--you're going to get another "no" vote in congress. This requires ZERO research beyond having been awake since 2008. Knowing that "no" is the wrong answer admittedly requires a bit more research, but is not a difficult conclusion to come to. That knocks out every single (R) on the ballot.

For every (LIB) or (GREEN) or (WHATEVER) vote, you're going to get one less vote for someone who might actually win. Look at Ross Perot and Ralph Nader. Off-brand parties only serve to steal votes from the party to which they are most similar. If my history serves me, there has never been a 3rd party president, and only a handful of 3rd party candidates elected to congress. This effectively takes all 3rd party candidates out of consideration, simply for the fact that they are extremely unlikely to win.

So, from a rational standpoint, the choice is clear--(D).

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The International Union of Thugees and Malcontents, Local 101, finds your thoughts intriguing, and would like to get some of what you're smok....er...would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

On the whole union thing:

I don't have the state by state breakdowns, but while the Republican governors have been figuratively breaking heads, the Democrats have been much more quietly achieving the same ends. In Massachusetts, New Jersey, and probably a lot of other states, public-sector unions have been forced to give the same concessions that are being wrested in Wisconsin and Ohio.

I am not denying that there are subtle differences between the parties, but in the final analysis, they are both like Orson Scott Card's Hamlet Snr.: all they want to do is bugger you for eternity.

(My apologies to those who enjoy consensual buggery for my poor choice of simile.)

New Jersey has been under Republican rule for the last couple of decades. Yes we've had an occaional Democratic governer, but they tend to implode shortly after taking office, either because of hanky panky reasons or forgetting the basics like seat belts at the worst possible times.

Basically, we've had two Republican Governers that are to blame for much of NJ's mess. Christine Whitman who cut taxes and then raided pension funds to balance her spending. When her chosen successor, the man who was given the job when she went to Washington couldn't win an honest election, the Republicans spent the lame duck period driving the state further to insolvency launching a bunch of unfunded spending initiative. Some of it's just plain idiocy. Like the selling of the EZPass system claiming that it was going to be paid for by catching toll both violators. Problem was that the numbers wouldn't have worked unless caught violations jumped up around a hundredfold. (They didn't.)

And now we have Christie, who isn't even bothering to be subtle about his anti-union tactics. On top of that he scuttled the ARC tunnel project that NJ had entered into partnership with both the Feds and New York, ostensibly because of money issues but has severe economic impact in the New York City areas of the state... Presumably the impact he feels pretty safe from since those areas were where he was voted in least.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hudax wrote:
Every republican in office tows the party line perfectly. All votes since Obama was elected have been virtually down the party line, with very few exceptions. Their stance is completely irrational, completely founded on an anti-Obama platform. They have nothing to offer besides "no." They are firmly entrenched in a political agenda that is contrary to the interests of 99% of Americans, and they sit there unmoving without caring if the entire country burns down around them. This they do purely in a prolonged attempt to discredit Obama, so they can retake the presidency in 2012. This is the political agenda of insane people who care nothing about the state of the country, only that they have control.

It's not an insane policy. It's a very rational plan of attack based on the sheer certainty that they are immune from the collateral damage that such decisions inflict, and the confidence that the blame can be shifted to the incumbent President. We've had eras like this before and the only consolation is that they all eventually came to an end.

But not before a lot of irreversible harm was done.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Patrick Curtin wrote:


Vote Libertarian.
Try to figure out why anyone wouldn't vote Libertarian.
Try to persuade people to vote Libertarian.
Show people why they should vote Libertarian

BTW love the meme that voting Democrat is somehow logical and perfectly rational while voting Republican is irrational and emotional. Motes, beams, and such....

Here's the problem.. Right now basically what you have are contending forces of corporate policy and state policy that pretty much are the whole ball of wax as to what impacts both economic, domestic, and foreign policy. Libertarians essentially do nothing more than tote the Republican line on how we must get rid of the state for freedom. When I ask how do we prevent corporate "super persons" which have all the legal rights of flesh people but a hell of a lot more economic muscle than even Bill Gates from filling in the vacuum created, they may sputter, go silent or march off on a Randian tirade, but the one thing they never do is answer that question.

Libertarians are like Marxists. They trumpet the Utopian ideal of laisseez-faire capitalism just like the latter used to trot out the ideals of Communism. The first is no more realistic than the second.

I myself vote Independent more often than not, but until I find a Libertarian that can answer that question to my satisfaction, none of them will ever get my vote.


LazarX wrote:
New Jersey

Hmm. Well, my THC-addled memory has failed me. I remember when the whole Scott Walker thing was going down, I saw a mainstream news piece on some mid-Atlantic seaboard state where the Democratic governor was addressing a large rally and was talking about the sanctity of collective bargaining...and the next day (or so) got out of compliant union tops as concessions a lot of the same givebacks Walker got by legislation.


LazarX wrote:

Libertarians are like Marxists. They trumpet the Utopian ideal of laisseez-faire capitalism just like the latter used to trot out the ideals of Communism. The first is no more realistic than the second.

[Adds LazarX's name to the list of future attendees of Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Reeducation-Through-Labor Supercenter]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Patrick Curtin wrote:


Vote Libertarian.
Try to figure out why anyone wouldn't vote Libertarian.
Try to persuade people to vote Libertarian.
Show people why they should vote Libertarian

BTW love the meme that voting Democrat is somehow logical and perfectly rational while voting Republican is irrational and emotional. Motes, beams, and such....

Here's the problem.. Right now basically what you have are contending forces of corporate policy and state policy that pretty much are the whole ball of wax as to what impacts both economic, domestic, and foreign policy. Libertarians essentially do nothing more than tote the Republican line on how we must get rid of the state for freedom. When I ask how do we prevent corporate "super persons" which have all the legal rights of flesh people but a hell of a lot more economic muscle than even Bill Gates from filling in the vacuum created, they may sputter, go silent or march off on a Randian tirade, but the one thing they never do is answer that question.

Libertarians are like Marxists. They trumpet the Utopian ideal of laisseez-faire capitalism just like the latter used to trot out the ideals of Communism. The first is no more realistic than the second.

I myself vote Independent more often than not, but until I find a Libertarian that can answer that question to my satisfaction, none of them will ever get my vote.

First of all, Libertarians do not wish to rid ourselves of government. anarchy is untenable, because nature loves a vacuum. The same way that 'collectivism' ends up with a mustachioed psychopath at the top, because someone will grab the reins of power.

However, there is a big difference between a minimal state and an overweening one. Progressives love to tote out the meme that somehow Libertarians are the slaves of corporations, but if you look around, who has the government in their pocket? Why the megacorps. They LOVE regulation because they already have a legal division they have to pay for anyway. They eat regulation for breakfast and belch out cut-and-paste hackjobs that are rubberstamped by mid-level federal bureaucrats without a care. Meanwhile, a startup faces reams and reams of red tape and fees. So much so that many hopeful entreprenures just shrug and look for a corporate position.

We spend trillions fighting a War on Terror, a War on Drugs, and a War on Poverty? Have we managed to stop any of them the least little bit? There's more drugs, more poverty and more terrorists than ever before. Why not pull back our world police forces, legalize non-victim crimes, and come up with some new out-of-the-box method to help people rather than cutting them a check because they were breathing last month?

Both parties are totally in the corporate pocket. and both sides push ahead more legislature to make it harder to get along unless you are a 'superperson'. Resistance is futile ...

And I vote Independent as well. That includes votes for Clinton (twice), Nader and Bednarik. McCain was the first Republican candidate I had voted for since 1988 when I held my nose and voted for Bush Sr. (Dukakis was my governor, even then I could smell a rat).

And all purists in political thought are usually Utopians. It goes with the territory. The real discussion to be having is what blend works best. I tend to go for a small (accountable) bureaucracy model where government concentrates on important things like watchdogging megacorps instead of minding the entire populace. I think technology will eventually trend us towards more freedom, not more collectivism. YMMV.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Patrick Curtin wrote:
They LOVE regulation because they already have a legal division they have to pay for anyway. They eat regulation for breakfast and belch out cut-and-paste hackjobs that are rubberstamped by mid-level federal bureaucrats without a care. Meanwhile, a startup faces reams and reams of red tape and fees. So much so that many hopeful entreprenures just shrug and look for a corporate position.VE regulation because they already have a legal division they have...

Actually they love regulation best when THEY under presidents like Reagan, Clinton, Obama, and the Bushes, were put in charge of regulating themselves. Somehow Reagan and the Bushes either never learned about putting the Foxes in charge of the henhouse, or they simply did not care.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

CLEARLY, BOTH PARTIES AM HAVING FAULTS. BARBARIAN BELIEVE AM SIMPLE ANSWER TO BE FOUND IN COMPLEX SOCIOECONOMIC SITUATION OF TODAY'S WORLD. BARBARIAN RUN ON PLATFORM OF SMASH.

AM GIANT SUPERCORPORATION BEING TOO BIG? BARBARIAN HAVE ENGINEERING DEGREE, BATTY BAT, AND LANCE THAT PIERCE HEAVENS. AM ONLY ONE SUNDER AWAY FROM COLLAPSE.

AM PARTISAN POLITICS PREVENTING ANYTHING FROM GETTING DONE? BATTY BAT AM BREATHING HOT DEATH DOWN PARTY LINES. AM SMASH MANY TALKY MEN.

AM THERE ECONOMIC CRISIS? GO SLAY DRAGON OR TWO. LOOT WORTH AT LEAST 100,000 BP, LAST FOR COUPLE YEARS.

BARBARIAN STRONG WITH MUCH EXPERIENCE IN ACTION ECONOMY INDUSTRY, AM FOUNDER OF BARBARIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTE.

REMEMBER, A VOTE FOR BARBARIAN AM A VOTE FOR WINNING, AND VOTE FOR OTHER GUY AM OPEN INVITATION FOR BARBARIAN TO SMASH OTHER GUY FACE LIKE SQUISHY CASTY.

POST AM SPONSORED BY BARBARIAN FOR PRESIDENT OF EVERYTHING GROUP.

BARBARIAN AM BARBARIAN, AND BARBARIAN APPROVES THIS MESSAGE.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Patrick Curtin wrote:
We spend trillions fighting a War on Terror, a War on Drugs, and a War on Poverty? Have we managed to stop any of them the least little bit? There's more drugs, more poverty and more terrorists than ever before. Why not pull back our world police forces, legalize non-victim crimes, and come up with some new out-of-the-box method to help people rather than cutting them a check because they were breathing last month?

The War on Poverty was never truly fought since Roosevelt's time... and to a large extent he succeeded, when you compare the fact that before his time during the Gilded Age there was no middle class and afterwards we had the longest period of prosperity the nation ever knew, although admittedly outside factors did help. (and before someone brings up World War 2, we were making strides out of the Depression before Pearl Harbor).

However the victories the War on Poverty have been steadily being taken back since the early 70's when you started seeing a new concentration of the GDP into fewer and fewer hands.

The War on Terror accomplished just what it was supposed to do in Afghanistan... get rid of an unfriendly government to allow a new pipeline to be built. It was somewhat less successful in Iraq as far as getting Western access to Iran oil wells but considerable progress was made there as well. Oh.... you thought that this war had something to do with Terror??


1 person marked this as a favorite.
talbanus wrote:
http://www.factcheck.org/

Bears repeating, and linking.

-- Andy


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
LazarX wrote:
New Jersey
Hmm. Well, my THC-addled memory has failed me. I remember when the whole Scott Walker thing was going down, I saw a mainstream news piece on some mid-Atlantic seaboard state where the Democratic governor was addressing a large rally and was talking about the sanctity of collective bargaining...and the next day (or so) got out of compliant union tops as concessions a lot of the same givebacks Walker got by legislation.

Times are hard. Even Democrats have bought into the austerity trap and the states don't have a lot of choice. Taxing those who still have money remains politically difficult, despite being supported by a majority of the population. The unions recognize this and have been willing to make large financial concessions. Democrats negotiated such deals. Republicans are union-busting.

Even the Wisconsin unions were willing to accept essentially the financial package that passed. What they weren't willing to do was give up their rights to bargain over work conditions and other non-compensation issues. In other words, on both sides, it wasn't about the money. Or at least not about the budget crisis.


Ya know what? I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm going to go back to the gaming silliness, y'all have a wonderful evening.


Patrick Curtin wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Patrick Curtin wrote:


Vote Libertarian.
Try to figure out why anyone wouldn't vote Libertarian.
Try to persuade people to vote Libertarian.
Show people why they should vote Libertarian

BTW love the meme that voting Democrat is somehow logical and perfectly rational while voting Republican is irrational and emotional. Motes, beams, and such....

Here's the problem.. Right now basically what you have are contending forces of corporate policy and state policy that pretty much are the whole ball of wax as to what impacts both economic, domestic, and foreign policy. Libertarians essentially do nothing more than tote the Republican line on how we must get rid of the state for freedom. When I ask how do we prevent corporate "super persons" which have all the legal rights of flesh people but a hell of a lot more economic muscle than even Bill Gates from filling in the vacuum created, they may sputter, go silent or march off on a Randian tirade, but the one thing they never do is answer that question.

Libertarians are like Marxists. They trumpet the Utopian ideal of laisseez-faire capitalism just like the latter used to trot out the ideals of Communism. The first is no more realistic than the second.

I myself vote Independent more often than not, but until I find a Libertarian that can answer that question to my satisfaction, none of them will ever get my vote.

First of all, Libertarians do not wish to rid ourselves of government. anarchy is untenable, because nature loves a vacuum. The same way that 'collectivism' ends up with a mustachioed psychopath at the top, because someone will grab the reins of power.

However, there is a big difference between a minimal state and an overweening one. Progressives love to tote out the meme that somehow Libertarians are the slaves of corporations, but if you look around, who has the government in their pocket? Why the megacorps. They LOVE regulation because they already have a legal division they have...

Thank you for telling the truth in the face of stunning stupidity, and questioning the statist slave mentality. I fail to understand the need to be used and controlled by the state, but this seems to be a religion for many people. I just can't get why so many people worship and obey what the government tells them to obey.

I don't understand why wanting to be left alone to live our lives without hurting others should be a death sentence, but I believe in individual liberty for adults.

I suppose some folks believe slavery to the state is freedom. I can't even begin to wrap my mind around their dogma.

My 2 CP, not yours, but I just don't get people who want to be state slaves in the hope of some benefit.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bitter Thorn wrote:
I don't understand why wanting to be left alone to live our lives without hurting others should be a death sentence, but I believe in individual liberty for adults.

Unless you're holing up in a cave somewhere, (and you're not since you're on the 'Net) you don't live alone it's not a viable choice. You're impacted on every level by choices, many of them made by others. Your choice is simple. Do you want all of your options made available by unfettered corporations, or do we have meaningful regulation as a check against unfettered corporate greed. The Libertarians will tell you that the market will magically always do the right thing if "government would just get out of the way.", which is pretty much the same line that the Republicans have been selling us, and the Democrats too timid to meaningfully challenge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

False dichotomy. No one wants to be a "state slave".

Most people simply do not think of the relationship between government and themselves that way.

Government should be responsive to the people and, to an extent, still is. Corporate power is only responsive to the bottom line. And not always that, since many corporate executive are only driven by their own personal profit, the next big bonus and golden parachute may be worth breaking the company for.

In a democracy, we have a much better chance of reining in the government and turning it to our advantage, than of reining in corporate power without government help.

Someone is always going to have power, it can be in the hands of a democratic government that is accountable to the populace or it can be in unaccountable hands. It cannot be in the hands of individual adults, unless they organize themselves, in which case you have a government.

To go back the post you're replying to, Bitter Thorn: How minimalist do you want government to be? I recall you not being able to give an example of a government you wouldn't consider a police state, so I assume you want a government less powerful than any we have examples of?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


Times are hard. Even Democrats have bought into the austerity trap and the states don't have a lot of choice. Taxing those who still have money remains politically difficult, despite being supported by a majority of the population. The unions recognize this and have been willing to make large financial concessions. Democrats negotiated such deals. Republicans are union-busting.

So, because taxing those with money is hard, the Dems take their pound of flesh out of the people who work for a living, and, ironically, are the their own base.

I guess where you see a party who have "bought into" a trap, I see a party that has been complicit in the rollback of any and all social gains made by the poor, oppressed and working classes since the Truman administration.

I also see a party vying neck and neck with the Republicans to serve the interests of this country's corporate masters.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
stuff I can't get at because there's too many other quotes in his post

Oh, BT...:(

I'm pretty sure you could have found a way to express yourself without calling your opponents stunningly stupid.

It's beneath you, man.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
stuff I can't get at because there's too many other quotes in his post

Oh, BT...:(

I'm pretty sure you could have found a way to express yourself without calling your opponents stunningly stupid.

It's beneath you, man.

Not just stunningly stupid, but we all want to be slaves too.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


So, because taxing those with money is hard, the Dems take their pound of flesh out of the people who work for a living, and, ironically, are the their own base.

I guess where you see a party who have "bought into" a trap, I see a party that has been complicit in the rollback of any and all social gains made by the poor, oppressed and working classes since the Truman administration.

I also see a party vying neck and neck with the Republicans to serve the interests of this country's corporate masters.

Your's is a fair interpretation and I've certainly been pissed at Democrats for much of the last couple decades. I don't agree with what they're doing and I do think many of them are much to deep in corporate pockets. That said, my original point remains: Republicans are much worse.

I've phrased my impression of the Democratic strategy in the past as "Democrats keep trying to prove they're as bad as Republicans. Republicans keep proving them wrong."

In this case, Democrats negotiated financial concessions from the unions. Republicans, under cover of financial need, took the concessions and also removed many union bargaining rights that didn't affect those finances.
There is a difference.

As a nitpick: I'd say the rollback didn't really get started until Nixon or maybe Reagan. Civil Rights and Medicare were both big steps forward under LBJ. The income gap didn't really start to open up again until the '80s.


No slaves, no masters--smash the state!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bt has the right to lose his temper on occasion and post forcefully, as do we all. However, what makes his threads and the shining minority of political conversation on this website is our propensity to be able to forgive the occasional outburst and get back to the matter at hand with cooler heads and minds a touch more open than they were before, perhaps agreeing to disagree if no consensus can be made. The role of government from a libertarian perspective is a touchy one and quite complex despite the simple arguments given and assumptions made, it seems.


Freehold DM wrote:
Bt has the right to lose his temper on occasion and post forcefully, as do we all. However, what makes his threads and the shining minority of political conversation on this website is our propensity to be able to forgive the occasional outburst and get back to the matter at hand with cooler heads and minds a touch more open than they were before, perhaps agreeing to disagree if no consensus can be made. The role of government from a libertarian perspective is a touchy one and quite complex despite the simple arguments given and assumptions made, it seems.

Of course he does.

In the past, though, I've always been impressed with his intellectual honesty, his ability to see things clearly and through all the b@#*+&%@, AND his ability to remain calm and fair in his dealings with people of wildly differing opinons. You know, like me. When I said that it was beneath HIM (not, for example, Comrade Curtin or myself), I meant it. If it seems that I'm holding him to a higher standard, that's because he's maintained higher standards for the year or so I've been visiting these boards.

Anyway, I was surprised at his outburst in this thread which, at least for the last page or so, has been civil and populated by posters such as Thejeff, LazarX and Union Thugee (all praise be to Kali!) who don't appear to me to be stunningly stupid nor mindlessly regurgitating what the state has told them to worship. I, on the other hand, may be stunningly stupid, but I don't think that anyone can make the claim that I got my views from the government.

All that being said, I'm a big Bitter Thorn fan.

C'mon, everybody: Group hug!


That wasn't my hand on your ass, I swear!


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

...I see a party that has been complicit in the rollback of any and all social gains made by the poor, oppressed and working classes since the Truman administration.

As a nitpick: I'd say the rollback didn't really get started until Nixon or maybe Reagan. Civil Rights and Medicare were both big steps forward under LBJ. The income gap didn't really start to open up again until the '80s.

Yeah, my sentence is sloppy and hyperbolic.

What I was getting at, since we were talking about unions, was the Taft-Hartley Act which was passed bipartisanly under Truman (albeit over his veto).


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, my sentence is sloppy and hyperbolic.

Like all my posts, I know, I know...

(Thought I'd say it before someone else did!)


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
When I said that it was beneath HIM (not, for example, Comrade Curtin or myself), I meant it. If it seems that I'm holding him to a higher standard, that's because he's maintained higher standards for the year or so I've been visiting

Yeah thanks for that Tovarisch. =\. Peace out...


Oh, come on. I only did that because I never miss a chance to call you Comrade Curtin.

Not to mention the fact that I placed myself in the same category.

EDIT: I apologize.


Accepted. I do think I will excuse myself from this thread though. Every time I get sucked into these conversations I end up feeling angry and that's not me. I come here for fun and to chat with fellow nerds about a hobby we share in common, not spar over politics. I wish they'd segregate these discussions from my beloved OTD but *shrug* I ain't the admin, it ain't my call. Well, it's 22 mins past my sanity break, so if y'all excuse me ...


Patrick Curtin wrote:
Well, it's 22 mins past my sanity break, so if y'all excuse me ...

See, that's your problem. If you do that BEFORE you come into these threads, your skin won't be so thin.

As for myself, I always have to refrain during union-dues week...so, please, take a hit for me!

Sczarni

Patrick Curtin wrote:
Every time I get sucked into these conversations I end up feeling angry and that's not me.

But it could be. Kali loves it when people get angry. We may have a place for you with the faithful. Especially if you can pull off the whole passive/aggressive routine. We like to lull our targets into a false sense of security with some fine dining before ripping their hearts out and lowering them into lava.


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
stuff I can't get at because there's too many other quotes in his post

Oh, BT...:(

I'm pretty sure you could have found a way to express yourself without calling your opponents stunningly stupid.

It's beneath you, man.

Not just stunningly stupid, but we all want to be slaves too.

I apologize. It was foolish for me to post post drunk and angry, and I only hurt my own case by sounding like an angry nut bag.

You guys have been courteous, and my crappy tone adds nothing to the debate.

I'm going to be out of touch for a couple of months, but I wanted to make an open apology before disappearing for a while. Hopefully when I come back my head will be in a better place, and I can engage and disagree in a more reasonable way.

OTD, thejeff, and LazarX, sorry for posting in angry douche mode.

Take care y'all.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
stuff I can't get at because there's too many other quotes in his post

Oh, BT...:(

I'm pretty sure you could have found a way to express yourself without calling your opponents stunningly stupid.

It's beneath you, man.

Not just stunningly stupid, but we all want to be slaves too.

I apologize. It was foolish for me to post post drunk and angry, and I only hurt my own case by sounding like an angry nut bag.

You guys have been courteous, and my crappy tone adds nothing to the debate.

I'm going to be out of touch for a couple of months, but I wanted to make an open apology before disappearing for a while. Hopefully when I come back my head will be in a better place, and I can engage and disagree in a more reasonable way.

OTD, thejeff, and LazarX, sorry for posting in angry douche mode.

Take care y'all.

Oh, I didn't realize you were drunk. Nevermind.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
stuff I can't get at because there's too many other quotes in his post

Oh, BT...:(

I'm pretty sure you could have found a way to express yourself without calling your opponents stunningly stupid.

It's beneath you, man.

Not just stunningly stupid, but we all want to be slaves too.

I apologize. It was foolish for me to post post drunk and angry, and I only hurt my own case by sounding like an angry nut bag.

You guys have been courteous, and my crappy tone adds nothing to the debate.

I'm going to be out of touch for a couple of months, but I wanted to make an open apology before disappearing for a while. Hopefully when I come back my head will be in a better place, and I can engage and disagree in a more reasonable way.

OTD, thejeff, and LazarX, sorry for posting in angry douche mode.

Take care y'all.

Oh, I didn't realize you were drunk. Nevermind.

LOL! That really doesn't make it OK though.


Pfft. You should see what I do when I'm drunk.

Although, since it usually includes taking my clothes off, maybe you shouldn't.

Scarab Sages

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Pfft. You should see what I do when I'm drunk.

Although, since it usually includes taking my clothes off, maybe you shouldn't.

See, I think that there are still some things that most of the world can probably agree on...


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Take care y'all.

I hope all's well with you Bitter Thorn, you've always my respect.

I recall an exchange we had months ago and you were a pleasure to type to, even though I could sense we disagreed deeply on the issue at hand.

My regards,

-- Andy


Moff Rimmer wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Pfft. You should see what I do when I'm drunk.

Although, since it usually includes taking my clothes off, maybe you shouldn't.

See, I think that there are still some things that most of the world can probably agree on...

I'm sending you a picture...

51 to 100 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / So What Are You Gonna Do About It? (For the government and coprorate malfesance threads) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.