Clinton pwns Fox News...

[Lucius]

Aww, but I love to get your attention baby, and yours only.

 

As for the contries, why not only don't they share a border, they don't have a common language or history either, so I can easily see how you got all that confused when you studied the extensive culture of Foreignenia!

Edited September 29, 2006 by Lucius

[LoneWolf16]

What?  You have a brain, don't you?  Sort out the truth for yourself.  As much as I hate to admit it, I do agree with Judge Hades.    Don't look at what just one person says, but look at an issue from all sides and then determine what you believe is the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Key word is "believe". I could believe that frogs become super models when kissed, but that doesn't make it true, now does it?

 

Truth is, you don't know any more than anyone else does. Don't treat your view point as fact, and others' as worthless.

[Rosbjerg]

muhahaha... love it.. Ahh I miss that guy .. he was actually intelligent and interesting to listen to! ^_^

[Dark Moth]

What?  You have a brain, don't you?  Sort out the truth for yourself.  As much as I hate to admit it, I do agree with Judge Hades.    Don't look at what just one person says, but look at an issue from all sides and then determine what you believe is the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Key word is "believe". I could believe that frogs become super models when kissed, but that doesn't make it true, now does it?

 

Truth is, you don't know any more than anyone else does. Don't treat your view point as fact, and others' as worthless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't automatically treat others viewpoints as worthless. When history and facts prove a person's arguments wrong, then their viewpoint is probably not worth listening to. Your whole 'supermodel frog' example is both silly and inadequate to show your point because everyone knows that that can't happen in real life. It's something that is scientifically impossible that has been proved wrong by scientific fact. When something becomes a fact, then it is truth. You could say that's what you believe, but nobody would believe you because everything proves you wrong. The frog example isn't like when reads about politics or current events. Current events are something that should be obtained from multiple sources. Then you could determine what is true and what's not, because you'd have evidence to support one view or the other.

[Lucius]

muhahaha... love it.. Ahh I miss that guy .. he was actually intelligent and interesting to listen to! ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was, wasn't he. It was quite refreshing to hear him again, as opposed to that moronic cowboy who can't even form a sentence without tripping over words or making up new ones as he goes!

How those people ever managed to elect him twice will remain one of the biggest mysteries of modern history.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Lucius

[Dark Moth]

Aww, but I love to get your attention baby, and yours only.

 

As for the contries, why not only don't they share a border, they don't have a common language or history either, so I can easily see how you got all that confused when you studied the extensive culture of Foreignenia!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Right. Anyway as much as I'd like to continue this pointless chat, we're derailing an already sad thread and not really making things better for any of us. We could keep trading childish insults back and forth, but that would only drag me down to your level of idiocy, in which you'd beat me with experience. And before you go trying to tease me about my one mistake on geography, perhaps you'd do better to actually learn some history and current events, before trying to make others look stupid. Try also learning how to argue more like someone your age and not like a hormonal 12 year old. Adios.

[taks]

We got ourselves involved in a situation that we shouldn't have gotten into in the first place.  Its not a failure of Bush, or Clinton, or any individual administration but a failure of our government as a whole.

 

We interfered and the world suffered for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now there may be a little sense coming from my favorite source of lunacy. I disagree that we should not have gotten involved with Afghanistan, if that's what you were referring to, but certainly attempting to lay blame is ludicrous. But, that's what politics are all about I suppose.

 

taks

[LoneWolf16]

What?  You have a brain, don't you?  Sort out the truth for yourself.  As much as I hate to admit it, I do agree with Judge Hades.    Don't look at what just one person says, but look at an issue from all sides and then determine what you believe is the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Key word is "believe". I could believe that frogs become super models when kissed, but that doesn't make it true, now does it?

 

Truth is, you don't know any more than anyone else does. Don't treat your view point as fact, and others' as worthless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't automatically treat others viewpoints as worthless. When history and facts prove a person's arguments wrong, then their viewpoint is probably not worth listening to. Your whole 'supermodel frog' example is both silly and inadequate to show your point because everyone knows that that can't happen in real life. It's something that is scientifically impossible that has been proved wrong by scientific fact. When something becomes a fact, then it is truth. You could say that's what you believe, but nobody would believe you because everything proves you wrong. The frog example isn't like when reads about politics or current events. Current events are something that should be obtained from multiple sources. Then you could determine what is true and what's not, because you'd have evidence to support one view or the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ya definitely came across as though anyone who thought well of Clinton was a ****ing moron. And you dissected my comment way too much there, simply saying that you don't know what goes on behind the scenes any more than the rest of us...and the example works, to a degree, you, as well as the rest of us, base your opinion on the words of others....meaning there's plenty of room to be mislead, or just left out on pertinent information.

[Rosbjerg]

He was, wasn't he. It was quite refreshing to hear him again, as opposed to that moronic cowboy who can't even form a sentence without tripping over words or making up new ones as he goes! 

How those people ever managed to elect him twice will remain one of the biggest mysteries of modern history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well he's in your political alley, so how come you don' t like him? your poster-boy Fogh is so far up his ass I can't understand how he breathes..

 

but interestingly Clinton had an automatic good-will with almost everyone I know .. and the rest was indifferent about him! but everyone loves to loathe Bush, even the "Republicans" of Denmark.. it's interesting how much the attitude of a President affects the international opinion of a country!

[Lucius]

Oh baby I know lots of stuff about current events, I just haven't put on my Jesus goggles so I don't really see things your way, you know. )

Also I'm impressed you knew a foreign word, consider it your first step into a larger world, where people can actually speak other languages than english.

I appriciate the attention, I don't normally get to fool around with my nemesis.

[Lucius]

He was, wasn't he. It was quite refreshing to hear him again, as opposed to that moronic cowboy who can't even form a sentence without tripping over words or making up new ones as he goes! 

How those people ever managed to elect him twice will remain one of the biggest mysteries of modern history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well he's in your political alley, so how come you don' t like him? your poster-boy Fogh is so far up his ass I can't understand how he breathes..

 

but interestingly Clinton had an automatic good-will with almost everyone I know .. and the rest was indifferent about him! but everyone loves to loathe Bush, even the "Republicans" of Denmark.. it's interesting how much the attitude of a President affects the international opinion of a country!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fogh is only the lesser of the two evils, I'll vote for the social democrats when they can present a good candidate. Personally I don't like what the left wing has to offer.

But you're right, though, although I'm more of a nationalist than a liberal, I do want the welfare system to work, you know.

[Dark Moth]

Oh baby I know lots of stuff about current events, I just haven't put on my Jesus goggles so I don't really see things your way, you know. )

Also I'm impressed you knew a foreign word, consider it your first step into a larger world, where people can actually speak other languages than english.

I appriciate the attention, I don't normally get to fool around with my nemesis. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Por que piensas que no se mucho sobre las idiomas extranjeras? Y mas, por que estas tratando de paracer como una persona listo? No tiene razon. Se mucho sobre los paises del mundo, pero has mostrado frecuentemente que no sepas mucho sobre que hables. Eres tan cojo que no puedas discutir sin recurrir a ataques personales, como religion! Que tonto.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Dark Moth

[LoneWolf16]

I'd just like to say....please don't tear by fragile argument apart. That is all.

[taks]

but interestingly Clinton had an automatic good-will with almost everyone I know .. and the rest was indifferent about him! but everyone loves to loathe Bush, even the "Republicans" of Denmark.. it's interesting how much the attitude of a President affects the international opinion of a country!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

heck, even i liked clinton in the beginning (voted for him the first time). once he got his boss, hillary, on the health care for all kick, however, my capitalist inner being began to lose interest.

 

taks

[taks]

Fogh is only the lesser of the two evils, I'll vote for the social democrats when they can present a good candidate. Personally I don't like what the left wing has to offer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

curious what the difference between a social democrate and a liberal are? are you using the term "liberal" in the economic sense, or in the US political sense, i.e. liberal = left?

 

taks

[Dark Moth]

Ya definitely came across as though anyone who thought well of Clinton was a ****ing moron. And you dissected my comment way too much there, simply saying that you don't know what goes on behind the scenes any more than the rest of us...and the example works, to a degree, you, as well as the rest of us, base your opinion on the words of others....meaning there's plenty of room to be mislead, or just left out on pertinent information.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alright. But I don't think you can say that one person can't know more than another person about what happens in the world. That would be like saying that a history professor wouldn't know more about history than the average joe on the street. It depends on how much people read into these things and how much they desire to know the truth. We can all be mislead, but one who knows a lot about what he or she is talking about has less of a chance of being mislead than the other. If one knows about history or current events, or both, than that person at least has more credibility to offer his opinion on a subject than someone who doesn't read at all.

 

I'd just like to say....please don't tear by fragile argument apart. That is all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aw, when you put it that way...just forget everything I said.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Dark Moth

[Lucius]

Oh baby I know lots of stuff about current events, I just haven't put on my Jesus goggles so I don't really see things your way, you know. )

Also I'm impressed you knew a foreign word, consider it your first step into a larger world, where people can actually speak other languages than english.

I appriciate the attention, I don't normally get to fool around with my nemesis. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Por que piensas que no se mucho sobre las idiomas extranjeras? Y mas, por que estas tratando de paracer como una persona listo? No tiene razon. Se mucho sobre los paises del mundo, pero has mostrado frecuentemente que no sepas mucho sobre que hables. Eres tan cojo que no puedes discutir sin recurrir a ataques personales, como religion! Que tonto.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice, finally a personal attack! I knew you could do it kiddo, jeg er stolt af dig! )

 

Now, all you need is to grow a little more backbone instead of constantly saying that you don't wanna give me more attention! Or do you have some secret crush on me after all? My greatest wish would be to turn a fundie b

[LoneWolf16]

Ya definitely came across as though anyone who thought well of Clinton was a ****ing moron. And you dissected my comment way too much there, simply saying that you don't know what goes on behind the scenes any more than the rest of us...and the example works, to a degree, you, as well as the rest of us, base your opinion on the words of others....meaning there's plenty of room to be mislead, or just left out on pertinent information.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alright. But I don't think you can say that one person can't know more than another person about what happens in the world. That would be like saying that a history professor wouldn't know more about history than the average joe on the street. It depends on how much people read into these things and how much they desire to know the truth. We can all be mislead, but one who knows a lot about what he or she is talking about has less of a chance of being mislead than the other. If one knows about history or current events, or both, than that person at least has more credibility to offer his opinion on a subject than someone who doesn't read at all.

 

I'd just like to say....please don't tear by fragile argument apart. That is all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aw, when you put it that way...just forget everything I said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That person who's more versed in the subject may have much more to draw on...but truth is an absolute, and in this particular area, absolutes are few and far between.

 

One last stab, baby.

[Lucius]

He's your babe as well? :angry:

[LoneWolf16]

Damn right, mine all mine. Find your own! :angry:

[Lucius]

****, well it prolly would've been a somewhat tense relationship anyhow.

[julianw]

I can totally see Mothie working for Fox News some time in the future. The Menacing Factor?

[Judge Hades]

We got ourselves involved in a situation that we shouldn't have gotten into in the first place.  Its not a failure of Bush, or Clinton, or any individual administration but a failure of our government as a whole.

 

We interfered and the world suffered for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now there may be a little sense coming from my favorite source of lunacy. I disagree that we should not have gotten involved with Afghanistan, if that's what you were referring to, but certainly attempting to lay blame is ludicrous. But, that's what politics are all about I suppose.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is easy to lay blame to past events than to solve the issues that make sure they don't happen again.

[Dark Moth]

That person who's more versed in the subject may have much more to draw on...but truth is an absolute, and in this particular area, absolutes are few and far between.

 

One last stab, baby.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay then. Estoy de acuerdo.

 

@julianw: I was thinking more along the lines of Mothie Hannity and Chupa Holmes.

[Fionavar]

Well it's bed time in the sandbox ...

 

/gets the sand broom