The Victory Thread

[Stone]

Eww, Raisinettes? Snowcaps are key.

[Jimmy Carter]

Sour patch kids. Half a bag and I'm sick.

[elBeardoAlwaysWins]

Originally posted by Stone
YellerDog - 60 Minutes had a special report on how the overconsumption of raisins can lead to increased rates of cancer.

In men of Jewish descent.

[YellerDog]

Originally posted by Stone
Eww, Raisinettes? Snowcaps are key.

Snocaps got nothin'.

Though anything is good mixed in with popcorn.

Originally posted by elBeardoAlwaysWins
In men of Jewish descent.

Aren't rasins originally Egyptian? Figures.

[elBeardoAlwaysWins]

The Jews used to work for the Egyptians. =)

[Almaci]

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
CONTRADICTION!

If a democracy is run by the people and the people are a bunch of flag worshippers...




No, a democracy is a government by the people, for the people. Democracy is not, in itself, liberty. It's just one form of it in politics.

And nobody... NOBODY, is kept free from being mocked because of their opinion. You're free to have and state your opinion. You are not free, however, to go without consequence.

What if someone came out and said they supported baby rapists? You'd better not go against him. That wouldn't be democratic!



No, it isn't.

Raping babies is illegal, being opposed to an illegitimate war and voicing youre disagreement with it in a civilised manner is not.

Its sad that you have to resort to such outlandish statements.

Originally posted by Stone
If they protested anonymously, then they wouldn't be in danger of losing their livelihood.

"Why should they have to protest anonymously? You don't!" I hear you say - effectively we are protesting anonymously because your name doesn't mean anything, it doesn't add anything to our protest.

When they protest using their name, using their public position, they're taking advantage of a position afforded to them by the FAME they've received from the viewing public. Because of that, they involve the public in their protests. And, because of that, the public has every right to extricate itself from those protests by ending its support of the performer. Just a reality of public life. Don't bitch about blackballing, and sure as hell don't compare this country to Iraq (at least not the Iraq of a month ago).

When Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Franks(who i might add was under investigation for using Army funds for personal gains before the war, the investigation has been clasified becouse of the war)etcetera align their names with companies like Haliburton, Boeing, Martin airspace, Enron, Texaco etcetera etcetera and use the fact that they are in office or have held positions in previous governments that have enriched them and hold public office right now are questioned however it is deemed unpatriotic and anti american.

Tell me Stone, both receive money from the public at large so why is it OK to try to silence one group while its unpatriotic to even ask questions to the other?

At least with the artists we know its their personal beliefs and convictions that makes them oppose the war.
Not so with those that organised it, they have personaly benefited and will most likely benefit some more from this and other scandals that have been shoved under the rug.

Tell me please, whats the difference.

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
What's so funny about wanting justification? If you can't back yourself up logically, it means that you're obviously spewing insults because you have no ability to debate.

Said the man who´s only response to my arguments and sources was to ridicule and make fun of me.

[Diff-chan]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
And whoever made the laughing comment about the lady getting run over by a bulldozer is a pretty sick fellow. I'm glad you find that funny.

Yea, I did laugh. Nobody told her to fucking go to Palestine and stand in front of a bunch of soldiers. Do I want to live? Yes. Am I going to a warzone to stand in front of bulldozers who have been known to run over people?

Whatever Israeli is doing, it might be fucked up, but they're doing it.

Its funny, because these people are getting exactly what they asked for. They do not deserve any sympathy. If a human shield gets shot, or killed, then well isn't that why they went there? If it wasn't, then why - to make some political statement about how evil America is? Puh-leeze. To me, this is the same as like the Darwin Awards, which make fun of people who die via stupid methods (like getting crushed by soda machines trying to get free soda).

As for the protesting actors thing... well in my opinion people are starting to realize that it doesn't fucking matter what these actors have to say... they just use their celebrity as a way of pushing their uninformed opinions around. I mean, I watched Politically Incorrect quite a bit, usually I couldnt get past the first 10 minutes without wanting to throw up. The show was awful because a bunch of celebrities went on the show and proved that they know NOTHING! When the best, most informed guess you have is, by far, Marilyn Manson, you know you have a problem. And yet MM was easily the top guest that Maher brought on.

After that show, I think a lot of people were like... "why do I care about waht these idiots think? They know nothing". Hence the backlash. Celebrities should SHUT THE FUCK UP and do their job, which is basicalyl standing around, looking pretty, and if they do have a voice, expressing it through their work - not using their to bully us into having their opinion.

[YellerDog]

Ahem.

Originally posted by YellerDog
I'm not sure what the fuck ANY of you are arguing at this point.

I think we can all agree that monkeys are funny. Therefore, we have a grounds for peace.

[Eight One]

Originally posted by YellerDog
I'm not sure what the fuck ANY of you are arguing at this point.

I think we can all agree that monkeys are funny. Therefore, we have a grounds for peace.

Ummm...yeah.

[Jimmy Carter]

Originally posted by Almaci
Raping babies is illegal, being opposed to an illegitimate war and voicing youre disagreement with it in a civilised manner is not.

Its sad that you have to resort to such outlandish statements.

No, the argument was about opinions. The argument set forth by Beardo was that a democracy is a place where people have a right for their opinion to not get them into economic trouble.

My point was that such a story is a load of fiction. A Democracy is a form of government, not a right to freedom. Our freedoms in the United States allow us to say what we want, when we want but our rights stop there. Nobody should be forced to be silent, whether in terms of speech or economics.

If someone thinks that having sex with a baby is fine, that's disgusting. But they have a right to that opinion and if people disagree, they will make it known. Anyone who thinks that way is not shielded from ridicule and should not be, because that would be a blockage of freedom of speech.

So, you're incorrect here. My analogy was perfectly applicable and anyone with a good sense of logic and a basic understanding of the English language could have figured it out.

Said the man who´s only response to my arguments and sources was to ridicule and make fun of me.

You say this all the time and it's not true. It's just a fallback position when you've got nothing else to say.

I was perfectly justified in asking for Beardo's reasoning for insulting me and he had none. He had none. If you call me stupid for having a different opinion, that's fine. That's your reasoning. But when you simply make a statement out of the air, insulting someone, you'd better be prepared to make your excuse, otherwise it will further strip you of any credibility you may have had.