Gun shooting in Arizona

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
_Eric

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Eric »

Calculus Crusader wrote:
Eric wrote:Hahaha. What does Sam Harris have to do with anything? You do know that the gold standard is not the gold reserve standard, right? They are not the same, you dear sweet Christian Warrior. Hahaha.


You are a transparent moron and poser Eric. Unlike LaRouche, I do not believe for a New York minute that you made any such distinction before now. You are just desperately trying to save face after being thumped.



HAHAHA!!!!


I don't think a better example of ignorance meeting arrogance could be made. Thank you, you dear sweet Christian Warrior.


Quick recap:

1. "Calculus Crusader" says 'LaRouche advocates for the Gold Standard too'.

2. I say, 'No, dear sweet Christian Warrior, he does not. Look at this Wikipedia page...'

Wikipedia wrote:New Bretton Woods. Advocates the abandonment of floating exchange rates and the return to Bretton Woods-style fixed rates, with gold, or an equivalent, used as under the gold-reserve system. This is not to be confused with the gold standard, which LaRouche does not support.


3. "Calculus Crusader" does some Internet research and comes back saying 'You should expand your horizons beyond Wikipedia and Sam Harris. Here is a quote from LaRouche advocating the gold-reserve system.'

4. I laugh hysterically and post quickly before leaving to go snowboard, saying 'you know that the gold standard is not the same as the gold-reserve standard, right?'

5. "Calculus Crusader", fully self-pwn3d at this point, now tries to say that I am trying to save face and I never knew of the distinction that I meantioned in #2 a week ago. You know, the distinction made by the portion of the Wikipedia article I quoted. Then he just starts calling names and posting more aggressively.

So I guess in Calculus Crusader's sweet Christian mind, if you've proven yourself to be ignorant and wrong, just get louder and call more names and pretend like you haven't really proven yourself ignorant and wrong. That way you'll never have to admit to yourself that you're ignorant and wrong. That's an interesting life lesson. Must be in the Bible somewhere. (?)
_Eric

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Eric »

Buffalo wrote:
Obiwan wrote:<snipped so much nonsense>


Again, you're irredeemably stupid. Fascism is a right wing movement, by definition.


This thread is a shining example of irredeemable stupidity. First Obiwan says every presidential assassin has been a "leftist". When challenged on this obviously false claim he/she says nothing. Now he says Mein Kampf was a leftist book? Are you serious? Is Obiwan trying to parody the Arizona shooter by pretending to be familiar with books he really knows nothing about? Are we really supposed to believe that Obiwan has read the (anti-Marxist, Christianity inspired) Mein Kampf and knows what it is about?
_Calculus Crusader
_Emeritus
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Calculus Crusader »

Eric wrote:

HAHAHA!!!!


I don't think a better example of ignorance meeting arrogance could be made. Thank you, you dear sweet Christian Warrior.


Quick recap:

1. "Calculus Crusader" says 'LaRouche advocates for the Gold Standard too'.


Actually, I wrote:

I believe leftist LaRouche also advocates for a return to the gold standard and his cultists like to proselytize at college campuses.

In response to:

The ultra-right spokesman most famously obsessed with gold and silver is Glenn Beck, the top-rated Fox News ranter.

4. I laugh hysterically and post quickly before leaving to go snowboard, saying 'you know that the gold standard is not the same as the gold-reserve standard, right?'

5. "Calculus Crusader", fully self-pwn3d at this point, now tries to say that I am trying to save face and I never knew of the distinction that I meantioned in #2 a week ago. You know, the distinction made by the portion of the Wikipedia article I quoted. Then he just starts calling names and posting more aggressively.


Eric, all you did was to take your lazy ass over to wikipedia and alighted upon what you thought was a refutation. I know you don't know the first thing about the distinction LaRouche makes, only that he made it. But go ahead and explain the distinction at length without making recourse to anything, since you claim to have known about it for at least a week.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
_Calculus Crusader
_Emeritus
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Calculus Crusader »

Buffalo wrote:
Conservatism breeds ignorance.



Yes, intellectuals refer to the "liberal elite" because there are no more conservative intellectuals.


You can add those delusions to your stockpile.

Liberalism is about using government programs to redistribute wealth and advance social causes. Anarchism is about chaos and the destruction of governments.


LOL. And you have the nerve to suggest that I don't know the definition of these words.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Buffalo »

Calculus Crusader wrote:
You can add those delusions to your stockpile.


The conservative fight against education and "elitism" has chased all its intellectuals away. You're an example of the leftovers.

Calculus Crusader wrote:LOL. And you have the nerve to suggest that I don't know the definition of these words.


You clearly don't. :)
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Eric

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Eric »

Calculus Crusader wrote:
Eric, all you did was to take your lazy ass over to wikipedia and alighted upon what you thought was a refutation. I know you don't know the first thing about the distinction LaRouche makes, only that he made it.



HAHAHA! Please stop. You're killing me.

So now, instead of just shutting up or admitting you were wrong, now you continue to insist that I didn't really know the first thing about the distinction that I pointed out to you to contradict what you said. Priceless.

Bottom line, you dear sweet Christian Warrior, you were wrong. The sad fact that you can't admit it doesn't change a thing.

It's also unfortunate that you won't share with us what source you were repeating originally so that other readers will know to avoid it and not to make the same mistake.

So a return to the gold standard is a right-wing ideal, that the Arizona shooter shared. I'm glad we're all in agreement on at least that. That's progress.
_Calculus Crusader
_Emeritus
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Calculus Crusader »

Eric wrote:
Calculus Crusader wrote:
Eric, all you did was to take your lazy ass over to wikipedia and alighted upon what you thought was a refutation. I know you don't know the first thing about the distinction LaRouche makes, only that he made it.



HAHAHA! Please stop. You're killing me.

So now, instead of just shutting up or admitting you were wrong, now you continue to insist that I didn't really know the first thing about the distinction that I pointed out to you to contradict what you said. Priceless.



That's right. You don't know the first thing about it. It's obvious even without your nervous laughter.

So a return to the gold standard is a right-wing ideal, that the Arizona shooter shared. I'm glad we're all in agreement on at least that. That's progress.


We are not in agreement on that point, dim bulb.
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
_Eric

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Eric »

Calculus Crusader wrote:
That's right. You don't know the first thing about it. It's obvious even without your nervous laughter.



LOL! The only way you'd ever make me nervous is if you were sleeping in a bunk above me.

Calculus Crusader wrote:
So a return to the gold standard is a right-wing ideal, that the Arizona shooter shared. I'm glad we're all in agreement on at least that. That's progress.


We are not in agreement on that point, dim bulb.


You're still in denial, apparently, but you also can't own up to even the most minor mistakes, so that doesn't mean much. Go ahead, this is your turn to point to another so-called leftist that advocates a return to the gold standard or offer a better counter argument than middle school name calling. I won't hold your incorrect example of LaRouche against you. Go ahead.
_Obiwan
_Emeritus
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Obiwan »

I and someone else showed the facts in relation to Presidential assassinations and the books and people that are supposudly conservative, but in fact are liberal.

I've posted the facts. It is not my problem some of you can't handle actual facts.

Yes, I'm aware that MLK was liberal on some issues. I already addressed that. Do you people even read??

And Mein Kampf is not a conservative book, I posted the facts which refute that already, while your guys opinions are not facts.
_Obiwan
_Emeritus
Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Gun shooting in Arizona

Post by _Obiwan »

Kevin Graham wrote:
Most doesn't mean all. Further, most people who have such degrees also leave Faith/Religion and/or become atheist, Mormons being the exception to the rule however. You suffer from the common stawman, thinking "most" somehow means the same as "good", "true", and "right".


Uh, you're the one who insistuated that people become conservative after age 40, implying they the more they learn, the more they leave Liberalism. I simply debunked that piece of stupidity.


You're conflating two issues. More College Degrees by liberals doesn't translate into people tending to be liberal when they are young, and if they have brains being conservative when they are older. Your statement is inapplicable to my point.

Further, of course their are old liberals. They simply never learned how to have brains. They never grew out of the radicalism and naivitey of their youth. Thus, they most certainly don't have a brain. The quote is accurate as to real life in my view. Sure, not you your view, but I see it myself in people. When I compare a gathering of liberals with a gathering of conservatives I see much more immoral and mentally unstable in the liberal group than the conservative group. The conservative group I see good, strong, intelligent, wise, and righteous people. The liberal group I see a bunch of nuts and elitists. Anyway, anecdotal, I'm sure you won't believe it.

Simply because most educated liberals come from wealth and cities and thus have the "opportunity" to get a college degree


CFR.
not having to actually WORK for a living as much as conservatives


CFR.


Just an observation of human dynamics and city structures. Are not city's more liberal than conservative? Is not hollywood more liberal than conservative? My point is simply pointing out "reasons" why liberals tend to have a slight edge in the number of college degrees over conservatives. It's not because they are smarter or want to be smarter than conservatives as you believe. There are social economic and cultural reasons for it.

It's the same kind of thing in relation to high Anti-depressant use or online porn in Utah. The liberal and anti-mormon will ignorantly take that stat and think it's Mormons and Mormonism that's doing it. However, the actual causes are other factors. Like with the drugs, you've got Counselors who automatically prescribe anti-depressants as a cure all for any problem, and since Mormons tend to make efforts to try and solve problems responsibly, that can increase the stat. Then you've got the fact that alcohol is not as easy to get and do. And so non-mormons take anti-depressants to help deal with problems. Porn the same. Both porn, partying, etc. is well regulated in Utah, so people wanting porn have to do it online. Also Utah has the highest rate of personal computers. On and on.

In other words, there are often "other" reasons for things rather than the seeming obvious. Liberals and anti-mormons don't know how to think and see beyond the obvious. And I see you're suffering from both unenlightened and ignorant ailments, so that's sad.

Conservatives like Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, The Koch brothers and the Walmart Family who inherited their wealth? What about Buffett, did he earn his? You seem to think that those who have wealth have it only because they actually work harder than those who don't. Do hedge fund managers work that much harder than a warehouse worker?


Beck, Limbaugh, AND Hannity ALL are SELF MADE from the lower/middle classes.

No, I never made such a claim. So, I'm not sure your point in relation to what I stated.

doesn't mean that makes liberals somehow "smarter" than a conservative. Conservatives though they may not have as many degree holders, they are most certainly SELF educated.


Exactly the problem with this country. There are too many self-educated fools like droopy, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh. The product of such self-education is mass stupidity. They usually congregate in Mormon chapels or Tea Parties.


Funny in how Mormons more so tend to be degree educated, not simply self educated than the general population. So, I don't know why you threw us in there. Further, it's interesting how you degrade self-education. You act as if people can't be intelligent and smart on their own unless they they follow some narrow prescribed curriculum that someone is feeding down their throat. Further, I have a college degree as well as the equivalent of two associate degrees in other areas. I don't seem to fit your paradigm. Further, sometimes having a college education can actually make you less wise and intelligent. Why? Because you are spending all your time and brain becoming "supposudly" smart in one area, and at the same time not being smart enough in others, thus, one can end up being unwise and unbalanced. Of course, even in the area you are getting good at, you may also not be wise in it because you could be being taught and embracing a false ideology, such as Obama and his being a so-called "constitutionalist", yet the only people he learned from and choose to seek were radicals and leftists in all his school years. I wouldn't call that a good education, I would call it a bad education and an imbalanced one even further.

Self education is only bad if the person in question doesn't have a brain in the first place, willingly absorbing everything and never coming to a knowledge of the truth. Intelligent people seek out the best, and are objective and balanced in doing so. You thinking conservatives on the radio etc. aren't among the best only tells me you aren't objective and have gone another direction.

In my opinion YOU are the "uneducated fools" for your judgements of those men, especially Beck and Limbaugh. Their shows especially Beck's tv show is FULL of highly balanced and facts and information.


Based on your self-educated perspective? Beck has been shown to be an idiot on a weekly basis. He throws out Cleon Skousen and Ezra Benson conspiracy theory while jumping around like the ass-clown that he is. Historians mock his inaccurate portrayal of history, and economists laugh at his understanding of economics. He is all about one thing and one thing only, making money. He makes money using scare tactics to sell his books, which makes him even more of a dirtbag. And Olbermann is a moron too, but no one compares to Beck. At least Olbermann went to school. Is it a coincidence that Limbaugh, Beck and hannnity didn't? They got their job by being able to animate the public. It is great for rating, and that is all FOX News is. It is the Jerry Springer of journalism.


You only show me how little you know of Beck etc. Your judgments are the common liberal propaganda caracatures of these people, not who they actually are. It's good at least you recognize Olbermann is an idiot. But, I think you are going off the deep end if you think they are anything alike. Or, you really don't know what you are even talking about with these people. You likely simply see drive-by media clips just like drive by anti-mormonism quote mines, and believe such is the "real" Beck or the real Mormonism.

Media Matters does a wonderfful job exposing the idiots you worship. They challenge them every day and your icons are afraid of them. For example, Media Matters paid 86k for a lunch with Rupert Murdoch. It was auctioned for charity, but Murdoch refuses to attend. Moveon is pretty dumb, but Huffington is just an opinion piece conglomerate like realclearpolitics. Some of it is extreme, but most of it is balanced.


And this further shows how ignorant you are. Media Matters does nothing but LIE about conservatives. Do you know how I know? Because I actually listen and watch them regularly. And know exactly hearing and seeing for myself what was said or occured, and then I see your fellow liberals reporting it, and Media Matters is no different than anti-mormonism. Taking a little truth and using it to tell great lies. "Wonderful job".... WOW....! Amazing your blindness.

It's just like the most recent liberal quote mine of Rush pretending to speak Chinese. They took his words out of context and then claimed he was being "racist" by doing that. Well, I actually listened to that show. Rush is not simply a news man and commentator, he's also an entertainer. That's why he has the biggest show. Who wants to listen for three hours to just dry boring news and commentary???

That same night Aston Kutcher was on one of the late night shows. And he and the host acted out a Japanese drinking game in which they were pretending to speak Japanese. Is HE a racist? No.... Because people know it's comedy. Likewise with Rush, he sometimes does comedy. He even has a comedian that does great parody's, songs etc., that he plays sometimes.

You people need to understand that both in your liberalism, and in your anti-mormonism, you do nothing but take a little truth and then use it to lie. Are you really so proud of yourself for this???

And no, you're never been me. I actually accepted reason and truth. You're still pissing on it.


I have been you, not totally you, but I've been there with some of your judgments. Your being ignorant that there are more facts and truth to the various issues than you currently think doesn't make me the one "pissing on reason and truth". I know for a fact you are the one doing so. Every single issue you think YOU know the "real" truth on, you don't, but I do. Of course, I was smart enough to stop myself and realize that I was going to the dark side and thus put away my judgments and kept learning. I didn't become invested in the degrading of good people and good religion, like you have. I realized that if ones cup is full and are degrading the very things they supposedly want to understand, how can one come to the actual truth compared to their current perceptions. I hope you realize this one day.

The fact that you think Obama's was ghostwritten by Ayers and Beck is a balanced fella, makes you the most discredited goober on this board. Hell, I doubt even Droopy would have exposed himself like this.


Please.... Your degrading of others according to your own ignorance doesn't help your case. You haven't seen the studies, heard the experts, I have. And you clearly don't know Beck at all since you have such a view of him like this. Your just a puppet of leftist propaganda.

Oh, and equating liberalism with anti-Mormonism proves you're even more of an idiot. I have at least seven Mormons on my Facebook, all of whom are staunch liberals, and all of whom range from the more intellectual side (Barney, Bradley, Brown, etc) And your intellectual icon, Hugh Nibley, was as Liberal as one could ever hope to be.


Nope, you are the uneducated one. I said ideologically and in methodology liberals and anti-mormons are the same, for they think and use the same methods in relation to their target of hate. Yes, and there are faithful Mormons who are liberals, and there are good christians who are anti-mormons. Being good and smart in one thing doesn't mean someone is good and smart in all things. I lament the existence of liberal Mormons, anti-mormon christians, and conservatives who are anti-mormon. So what, and to every Hugh Nibley, there are a 100 just as smart conservatives, some who publish and some who are in the background. Further, Hugh Nibley wasn't liberal like today's liberal. Today's liberal is the radical left of the 60's, Marxists, Socialists, Communists in ideology. Hugh Nibley wasn't any of those things. Yes, he had liberal tendacy's in some issues, but he was still mostly conservative, not as liberal as liberals try to make him.
Post Reply