R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:
LOL. I squirm and try to suck up, huh? Who exactly do you see me sucking up to? That's hilarious. I make my points, you throw weak insults. Goodwrench throws weak insults. I call you both on your childishness, you defend each other with more childishness.

Really?

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:What he meant:
"I'd prefer to express my hatred about religious groups as I see fit, openly and without criticism."

LOL. You've got so little to offer any discussion,that you've focussed your attention on feeble personal jabs at me trying to put words in my mouth. Way to go, dumbass. Found here: http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=36&i=66535&t=66469&p=2

This was just this week, and I'm sure there are more with in the JBO.
Serious note. Remember when I said to "notec" here on this thread: If you are an example of the word, expect me to label you as such, this is just it. I mean do you ever stop and think when you take your petty routes with responses that involve "trying" to call out other's hypocrisy, typos, start with LOLMAOBBQXYZ (?), avoiding the questions, half or mis-quoting for cynical use, throwing cartoons made by you through Photo-shop, to then return and call on others for the same as what you do? Seriously, what do you get out of it? Do you think that we don't notice? It is all recorded here, for god-sakes. At what point, do you say to yourself, let me not look like an arse and exit my self out instead of having the last word with an irrelevant context, as I just stated? If you have a difference of opinions, excellent... state your point and expect a point to be questioned if someone chooses so, but to then pin-point the things that you do as if you're not guilty of... (insert a "face palm" pic)
And Quickie, this was not an "insult..." as you may want to call it, but I dunno if I'm the only one here, but to me at times it just gets wee bit absurd.

INFIDEL wrote:

OHV notec wrote:

INFIDEL wrote:Yes my "4th Grad Education" Dont be knowing hows the big badddd presdent (Regan) had such a HUGE fallowing from both the left and right..... OSE greatone, will yous edamakate me pla-see!

What's sad is that that was actually somewhat easier to read than what you normally post

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Hitler did too, so what's your point?

THERE IT IS!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

LOL.
That happens when I'm trying to go fast at work.
And GT, for real, Educate me.
Chris

If you are serious, you can start here.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Mr.Goodwrnch-G.T. wrote:This was just this week, and I'm sure there are more with in the JBO.
Serious note. Remember when I said to "notec" here on this thread: If you are an example of the word, expect me to label you as such, this is just it. I mean do you ever stop and think when you take your petty routes with responses that involve "trying" to call out other's hypocrisy, typos, start with LOLMAOBBQXYZ (?), avoiding the questions, half or mis-quoting for cynical use, throwing cartoons made by you through Photo-shop, to then return and call on others for the same as what you do? Seriously, what do you get out of it? Do you think that we don't notice? It is all recorded here, for god-sakes. At what point, do you say to yourself, let me not look like an arse and exit my self out instead of having the last word with an irrelevant context, as I just stated? If you have a difference of opinions, excellent... state your point and expect a point to be questioned if someone chooses so, but to then pin-point the things that you do as if you're not guilty of... (insert a "face palm" pic)
And Quickie, this was not an "insult..." as you may want to call it, but I dunno if I'm the only one here, but to me at times it just gets wee bit absurd.

Well, you've obviously missed it that others have pointed out recently and in the past, that I don't start the sh!t with you two, but I do throw it back at you. Big difference. I have made plenty of attempts at keeping just to the subject, but your argument is apparently so weak that you can't help but resort to insulting. You want to play semantics and say that suggesting a word like "ignorant" is not an insult, but the bottom line is that you use it with intent on discrediting your opponent. You're using it to smear. That qualifies it as an insult. You start that, and you'll get it back. Plain and simple. As for the suggestion of avoiding the questions, you've done that on countless occasions, then try to turn it around when I won't play your game and let the conversation pull away to where you want it to go. Sorry, but you can't avoid a question, then argue that someone else avoided yours. And yes, it's all recorded here, with dates, in chronological order, which means we could go back (if anyone wanted to waste the time), and see who threw the first insult. I'd be curious how many people here would bet it was me.

-Your type of "starting the sh!t" consist of responses that are irrelevant. To then laugh, to then bring passed arguments, to then make it personal, and to end up going completely off-topic, like this thread.
-You call it "insulting," I call it what you are. Don't want to be "insulted," then don't display the part. Simple no?
-You are the little few that thinks-- "ignorant" is an insult. You couldn't be a better example of the word (case-in-point: not knowing what this word means). But when you know absolutely everything from end to end that this world offers, I can see why you would think it would be an "insult." I know you're anti-books, but seriously, pick a up dictionary once in while, it will do you good.
-As avoiding questions, I'm still waiting for your answers on numerous threads including the one I've repeated it like a broken record. Even on here, you'll find some. But in your typical fashion, "avoid and run." Heh, and now the new one: "throw it back at you."
And since this thread partly had to do with what your buddy boy actor started, it was no surprise that it would turn to avoiding the topic altogether; to only get diluted and in hopes that people forget.
I will be the bigger man and leave since, “you ain’t got nothing.” At least it is document on where this world is heading. But worry on the Mosque in NY, that’s wayyy more important.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

wasn't this about china? why do you guys always have to turn these posts into rants about each other. are your ego's really that big that you have to attack the other? why not take the high road and just debate about the topic


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography

Jason, it was about China. I made some points and he got butthurt, couldn't come up with anything more than a personal attack, and now he cries like a little bitch when he gets it back. Typical of all threads people debate with him on.

Yeah, maybe it's a failing of mine that I won't simply ignore his childishness, but whatever. He wants to play the game, I'll play for a while. It only serves to show how weak his arguments are.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:You are the little few that thinks-- "ignorant" is an insult. You couldn't be a better example of the word (case-in-point: not knowing what this word means). But when you know absolutely everything from end to end that this world offers, I can see why you would think it would be an "insult." I know you're anti-books, but seriously, pick a up dictionary once in while, it will do you good.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O wrote:You want to play semantics and say that suggesting a word like "ignorant" is not an insult, but the bottom line is that you use it with intent on discrediting your opponent.

Reading > you. Again, you are constantly trying (and failing) to suggest that you are more intelligent, and that I don't understand simple words, but it just proves how weak you are. This is all you've got? Really?

By the way, I'm not against books. I'm simply pointing out that your argument that textbooks are a non-biased source is wrong.

Keep up your pissing contest, though. You're simply coming up short.

I don't think calling Quik "ignorant" is anywhere close to appropriate, especially with Taetsch, ScottA, and so many others here who bring only dogmatic rhetoric. At least Quik makes a conscious effort to back up his opinions. Just because he doesn't come to the same conclusion as everyone else doesn't make him ignorant. If subjects involving morality, economics, and their contribution to policy were straight-forward, we wouldn't even be having these discussions




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster