Searching "comments":
| # | Comment | Survey |
|---|---|---|
| 31 | > [This argument is pretty lame. "lying is the
> lamest social trend in the last ten years." Really? > Lying was just invented 10 years ago. Oh, nice, imply I said something completely different from what people could scroll up and see what I actually said.  > I would > go for the crappy music or the 80s fashions..But > yeah, making up BS about works with your argument > better. I shall not come back again..So disappointing.] Except you are the one who made something up. And I can prove it as well, by, unlike you, actually re-posting verbatim what I originally wrote, i.e. the statement you distorted. "Somehow it became more acceptable to lie, than to call people who lie, liars. Of all the lame social trends I've seen in the past ten years, that's the one that enrages me the most." So, what are you then? A liar, or just plain ignorant? | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 32 | > Dude, really?!
> By saying that lying is a lame social TREND you > are implying that it came around withing the last > ten years. Scroll up and read what I actually typed you twit! You have now TWICE done this. Oh forget it. let me just re-paste it, in BOLD TYPE this time since you are clearly BLIND! "Somehow it became more acceptable to lie, than to call people who lie, liars. Of all the lame social trends I've seen in the past ten years, that's the one that enrages me the most." Do it one more time and you will forfeit the right to be offended when I insult your intelligence. > Guess what, it being more acceptable > to lie has been around for much longer than that. > People lie to protect themselves people don't > expose the lie unless they're jerks or are going > to be hurt. But I'm sure that just started. > It's not a trend because it's been around FOREVER. > No, what I am talking about, what I said CLEARLY, in plain fudging English, which is I guess your fifth language, is that in America we have gotten to a point where a liar in politics can get re-elected, but call that liar a liar, and YOU are cast in the role of villain by the So-Called Liberal Media. You saw it all the time during the 2004 election. Kerry supporters would point out when Bush was saying things repeatedly that were demonstrably false (was that too many big words for ya?), and the media would attack us for calling Bush a liar. Note that hardly ever did they actually say or provide evidence that we were wrong, they'd just attack us for pointing it out. > > You argue similar to a four year old. "She's > a liar! I didn't say that!! She did!!! Pooop!!!" > Coming from you, who had to remove whole words from my sentence, while rearranging the order of others to make you case, that is absolutely hillarious. This is how you are arguing, right now. Me: I have a problem with X being treated as worse than Y. You: What an idiot, you're acting like Y is new. > I did scroll up and see what you said, by the > way. I'm pretty sure most people will agree that > I pretty much summarized what you said. > Only if they're morons. You did nothing of the sort, and you full well know that. of course, I'm sure I'll be treated as the bad guy in this for pointing it out. It's OK for you to make crap up, but Gods forbid I call you out for it. I never said that lying itself was new. You twice have claimed I have. That is untrue. Erego, you are, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, a liar. Main Entry: li·ar Pronunciation: \ˈlī(-ə)r\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lēogere, from lēogan to lie — more at lie Date: before 12th century : a person who tells lies > But yeah...I'm a liiiiiar. Yes, yes you are. And I nailed you on it. TWICE! > For the record, even if I was lying (which I wasn't) > it totally doesn't make me a liar. For the record, you did lie, twice. You're still lying now. That makes you a complete liar, and a pathological one at that. As for the lying wouldn't make you a liar comment, I suppose that's true, in the same way that just because you are brushing your teeth doesn't mean you are engaging in dental hygiene. > And, in most > social circles calling someone a liar is equivilent > to putting a large sign on your forehead that > says you're a dbag. And there's the rub. Oh, and thank you for finally, for the first time ever, actually getting to what my point in my post that you lied about twice was. Why does calling people out for blatant dishonesty make YOU the bad guy? Using your sick twisted moronic pitiful excuse for "logic," then L.A. prosecutors are to blame for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. I mean yeah nearly decapitating your ex-wife is bad an d all, but jeez what kind of "dbag" would you have to be to point that out to the guy who did it. > Have you ever stopped to > think maybe it was a misunderstanding (not what > I said, I meant what I said. Just in general)? If it happens once, maybe, but when you do it multiple times, AFTER the reality has been pointed out to you, than that makes you a worthless liar. Like say, saying that someone is claiming lying is a recent invention when they did no such thing. And don't try to claim your bullcrap was misunderstanding, you read the post, than CHOSE to misrepresent what I said. So in that case even the first one can't be considered a freebie. You were being a liar. And a bad one at that as disproving you took all of a second and a half to copy-n-paste what I'd originally said into my reply, which you then proceded to lie about AGAIN! > Of course not..because everyone is a liar and > ignorant compared to you. You Oh Magnificant > One are all knowing and always right. > Liars are liars, and I should not have to walk on egg shells around them. And you, if you are a third as smart as you like people to think you are, should know better than to try and discredit me with not only lies, but a strawman argument on top of them. Unless you actually believe that because I at least make an effort to do some cursory research on a topic that means I have some kind of superiority complex. I don't know everything, but unlike doges like you, I try to do some research before I open my trap. And I sure as hell don't lie about something that can be disproved with a half second click of the scroll wheel on my mouse, like you have. > I'm just waiting for you to quote that last part > with a lot of enraged vocabulary. And I'm waiting for you to come up with another bullcrap rationalization for why speaking truth to power is a bad thing and why liars are really good people. Big Brother would've loved you. Getting someone like you to go along with the party line would take all the effort of destroying a soup cracker. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 33 | I sure hope we don't go by your definition SY. I'd hate to think that the Bushies could be allowed to sweep the victims of the anthrax attacks under the rug, all in the name of making Obama look bad. If your definition were the generally accepted one, that's exactly what would happen. And of course political terrorism would be okay because hey, it's only generated fear, it's not like someone blew up or anything. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 34 | > I'm sorry I have a hard time reading bullcrap.
> Funny, you sure seem to have no issue with writing it. > How about you step outside of your dark dungeon > of a home..AND MEET SOME REAL PEOPLE...INSTEAD > OF ARGUING WITH A 19 YEAR OLD. I mean, seriously. > You just absolutely do not want to admit that > there is ever even a chance that you are wrong. > Because in this instance I'm not! I've proven it, TWICE you dumb cow! > Yeah, you're smarter than me..for sure. Thanks > for calling me stupid, I greatly appreciate it. Well, considering your snide remarks about my vocabulary, I figured you'd take stupid as a compliment. > [In fact, I would equate someone calling me stupid > to be right up there with you hating anything > on the right..Except..I wouldn't kill someone > if they called me stupid.] > I'm sure you've lied at least once in your life, > George Washington, so by your definition you too > are a liar. > Nice little logical fallacy there. So much easier than actually using facts isn't it? Sure, when I was a hormonal teenager I lied constantly. But according to you, it was OK that I did that, but anyone who took me to task for it, was being a douche. > You seem so excited to have caught me lying twice. > I feel sorry for you. The greatest joy in your > life comes from calling me a liar. Greatest joy? How do you figure? Oh wait, you're just making crap up because you are well aware that you can't win an argument on the merits. That is why you had to lie, twice, about the same thing. Remember how Mark Twain defined insanity? > Please, get a hobby aside from the Internet. Apparently, you're not only dishonest, but also suffer sever memory loss. Two podcasts, a finished novel, a full time job, cooking experiments... > Try to meet some people who actually give a crap > about what you're blathering endlessly about. > I just love how you can act like you have the moral or intellectual high ground. Who's the one who lied twice about something that takes less than 10 seconds to disprove? > Go take some blood pressure medication, take a > deep breath, and realize that this actually doesn't > matter at all. We are two people who live practically > on opposite sides of the country. I am not a > co-worker, a classmate, or a neighbor of yours. > My opinion in the grand scheme of your life, > does not matter at all. > But you lying about me does, and I wonder if you are smart enough to realize the irony in you attacking for never admitting I'm wrong (which is bullcrap on it's face; you've been around long enough to know that) when you're the one who insists on declaring victory based on a nonsense. > And I am never going to change my opinion. Opinions are fine. But you were LYING. End of story. I busted you on it already. Now admit it already. Unless of course you are in fact all the awful names I've called you on the Forum, including but not limited to "cuntrag." > Edit: By the way, thanks for marking my comment > negative and plussing yours. It makes it look > like I'm as irrational as you are. Silly goose. Well, since you are apparently so psychic you know my motives for clicking the negative rating, tell me what I'm thinking of right now. Oh wait, you can't. You aren't psychic, you're just a waste of human life who lied, got caught, then lied again. I only wish I could Neg. you twice for that; one for each lie. I hope that when your death comes, it is slow enough that you have time to realize how truly pathetic you were, to declare victory in a debate with me, when all you did was lie, lie again, make weak analogies, and "mistook" bias for opinion. In short, for the good of the human species, sterilize yourself. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 35 | > "I sure hope we don't go by your definition SY.
> I'd hate to think that the Bushies could be allowed > to sweep the victims of the anthrax attacks under > the rug, all in the name of making Obama look > bad." > > My "definition" of terrorism is that I'll know > its terrorism when I see it. That tends to be > everyone's definition to some extent. Also, I > doubt the Bushies would want to make Obama look > bad, since they have nothing to gain by doing > so. >  > > "And of course political terrorism would be okay > because hey, it's only generated fear, it's not > like someone blew up or anything." > > Gee, no, that wasn't jumping to conclusions. > Anyway, if something isn't considered to be terrorism, > it would still be considered a crime. I don't > think that the FBI (or whoever has juristidiction) > cares if you classify something terrorism or just > crime. They'll just do what needs to to get > the job done. > > (PS - now that I think about it, any sitting president > would actually have an incentive to classify every > attack on their watch as terrorism, simply because > they'd get more leverage to fight it. It was > GWB that instituted the Patriot Act (which you > made a huge deal about it), and calling something > terror generally gives the government a work around > for having to get a warrant) Only in the minds of a NeoCon. Plenty of other countries have dealt with terrorism without raping laws that date back to the Magna Carta. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 36 | > Since you went to the trouble of highlighting
> your own text in bold, so that now you can't claim > of being misquoted. > > "Somehow it became more acceptable to lie, than > to call people who lie, liars. Of all the lame > social trends I've seen in the past ten years, > that's the one that enrages me the most." > > 1) On what are you basing your assertions that > it has become more acceptable to to lie than to > call those people liars, especially in comparison > with the past. Thats a pretty bold assertion. > Watch the news, read a newspaper, talk to common Republican voters... Dude, you really need to get out more. I can find examples without even trying. Just look at the vids I cited for this survey! Dana Perino and Mary Matalin lied, and neither Sean Hannity who claims to represent "American values," nor the allegedly Liberally Biased CNN (which I guess it is, at least when compared to Leni Riefenstahl's movies) called them out on it, and if they had, the way Keith Olbermann, or Ed Schultz did, large swaths of this country, including apaprently our "friend" llamamama, would go after those trying to speak truth to power. Why? Becuase lying about Bush's terrorism record might not be a good thing in their eyes, but it is far preferable to saying "That's just not true." Just look at the litle twats reaction to my busting her on her lie. She's mad at me for calling her on it! A decent human being might at least feign shame at being caught, but in her fudgeed up little world, I'm the bad guy for calling a lie a lie. She is a walking, Broken Aesop. In her world, the villagers are to blame for not listening to the boy who cried wolf the one time there actually was a wolf. > 2) "Of all the lame social trends I've seen in > the past ten years,...". Perhaps I should stop > you right there. Ok, do tell. What other "trends" > have you noticed in the past ten years. Twilighters, people who continually use the word literally incorrectly, the overuse of Auto Tune... > Generally, > people who "notice" trends when there are none > tend to come off as looking like they're trying > to justify some narrow point of view, or make > a profit if they're the media. > > I am sure you're familiar with all the trends > LJD is ranting about. Apparently, Mexican drug > gangs are taking over the entire nation according > to her, which you no doubt took her to task on > that. Yep, thats your right now. So, you're comparing my complaint about the demonstrable practices of American "mainstream" jorunalism, to the lunatic racist ravings of someone whose information comes from other lunatic racists who had enough money to hit Kinkos one weekend? | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 37 | > Sorry, I don't like when people yell at me..So
> I tend to tune out. > > Podcasts are on the Internet. k, thanks. And > full time jobs are not hobbies. > Finding ways to make it fun as opposed to feeling like "work" is. I'm a firm believer in the old proverb that if you find a job you love you'll never work a day in your life. I know I'll never love the job I have now, but with a little creative energy I can make it one that I "like." As for Podcasts, yes, they are on the Internet, but what you don't seem to understand, even after all the time I've spent practically gushing like a schoolgirl about it is that we are a Community. I mean just look at the thread I started that CK ruined! Look at how far we are willing to go for each other. The podcasting community is the same community that saved my ass during the whole thing with my former roommate. The only help I got from this place came from Maarten. And it's not like none of us have ever met. Just last year, I was at BaltiCon, and while these names I'm about to drop mean nothing to you, to me they are my rock stars, and I got to shake hands, have lovely chats, and in a few cases wonderfully platonic hugs with all of them; Tee Morris, J.C. Hutchins, Mur Lafferty, George Hrab, Evo Terra, Sheila Dee, Ms. Information, mark the Encaffineated One, Jack and Teresa Jaffee, Nathan Lowell, Paulette Jaxton, Jared Axelrod, Steve Eley, Paul Fischer, Scott Roche, Christiana Ellis, Matt F'n Wallace, Jim Van Verth, J.R. Blackwell, Phil Rossi, Kim the Comic Book Goddess, Tabz, Dr. John Cmar, David Moldawer, Brand Gamblin, and a few people I know I'm forgetting right now. > I would tell you to sterilize yourself except: > 1) I'm not out to have the whole world hate me. > 2) There's no chance in hell you'll ever have > kids. > Considering the kind of world this, the kind I've spent the past few posts chiding you for at least seeming to endorse, I'm not so sure that me not having kids is a bad thing. Just don't tell my Dad I said that.  > That was probably pretty harsh..But all your shouting > and name calling has made saying anything impossible. > > I'm not sure why you think it's okay to call a > kid a cuntrag. That's why you'll forever be single > and not live with anyone other than your cats > (and no, dbag roommates don't count. See, I do > listen.) The douchebag roommate is long gone. My new roomie and I get along just fine, even if he did think Disaster Movie was funny. > I'm not declaring victory..I'm just not sure why > you need to be right..all the time. You don't..it > really doesn't matter. > > Also, I'm not 13, so I'm not a hormonal teenager. > Yet. Just keep remembering the light at the end of the tunnel when you're going through it. > Yes, I lied..Totally. This argument has gotten > so pointless I don't even remember what you were > talking about. But sure, I was lying. So you > win. Yaay. Put that trophy on your mantle. No trophy needed. Hell, if you'd just left it at the first time you completely rearranged my sentence to make it look like I said something different from I actually said, we wouldn't even be here right now. You chose to repeat the same falsehood, and my parents didn't raise me to just let lies lie. When you don't fight lies, they fester and start to eat at the truth like weeds. A lie can be half way around the world before the truth can get it's pants on. Consider how many things, not even about politics but about say the music industry that people, even smart people who should know better, accept as fact to this day. Google the phrase "rod stewart, stomach pump, semen" sometime if you doubt the power of bullcrap. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 38 | > I'm not a hormonal teenager yet? Or I don't see
> why you always need to be right, yet? > Sigh. No, *multiple expletives deleted*, it's about Human Biology. God are you so deranged, that you can see an effort to shine my own image in a statement that is Older Than Steam? Teenagers go through a thing called puberty. Perhaps you've heard of it. I didn't invent it, though I'm sure you're currently concocting a version of events wherein I did. It's been around for hundreds, nay, thousands of years. And humans are hardly the only species to go through a child/adult physiological transformation process. Me pointing that out should to no sane person seem like me "needing to always be right." Don't believe me? Talk to a biologist. Or just keep insinuating BS about me, if that's easier and more worthy of your time. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 39 | > Okay, no..that's not what I meant.
> > The part that you quoted included both me saying > how I wasn't a hormonal teenager..And me saying > I don't see why you always need to be right. > You quoted them both in the same spot. I wasn't > sure what you were talking about. > There were in the same paragraph. What conclusion would you have drawn? > But thanks for insulting me. > > And if puberty didn't start in me yet..I'm sure > my doctor would have already taken it up with > me. As it stands...I'm at the age where puberty > is over and has been for some time. At 13? Um, then you went through it at hyperspeed there sparky, because when I was 13 it had barely started. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 40 | > No, I said I wasn't 13..therefore I wasn't a hormonal
> teenager. Then you said, not yet..Implying that > soon I would be a hormonal teenager. > > Never mind that girls start earlier than boys..but > yes, at 13 I was still going through it. However, > at this point in my life I am not. > > The two comments were right under each other. > My bad. Yeah, that does seem to be the main point of confusion. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
