1,301

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

"This is unreasonable.  They slander my reputation with lies, false accusations, which effectually suppresses my free speech."

You'd have to prove it. Since you're wrong as a matter of fact on this issue, you're arguing that we should be able to sue you for our libelous statements regarding our statements. Since we can, in fact, prove this, your proposal has to be the most idiotic thing since... well, communism itself.

"They do so with the intent of stifling dialogue on issues at hand, with the intent of sabotaging healthy debate on issues they would rather not see debated...."

I've asked legitimate questions which you refuse to answer or respond to in any way. You similarly ignore all of my arguments. You're just condemning yourself.

"and do so with speech which verges on hate-speech.  And you, acolyte, are making it seem that I am the bully, here....  "

I wouldn't call you a bully, but I would call you a child-like person with serious psychological disorders. You are choosing not to engage in any sort of discussion or debate here. You are choosing to respond to nobody's arguments. You are choosing to accuse people of lying, without ever having responded to the content they've posted and without ever having corrected the supposed lies.

"Why does Kemp keep responding?  I have asked him not to respond in my threads; his participation stops the process of sincere debate (as evidenced by this very discussion)."

Because you're an embarrassment to the forum. My posts have 4 purposes:
1) To discourage you from continuing trolling this forum. You're obviously trolling. Nobody is this hypocritical and insane. I do so not by trolling, but simply by offering legitimate commentary on the content of your posts. Which leads to...
2) As an exercise in patience. Though you are obviously just trolling, many communists do offer such limited and ignorant arguments for their tyrannical and slavery-supporting ideologies. I'm practicing patience with my less-fortunate fellow human beings. I have responded to the content of your posts.
3) To show casual viewers that your insane, ignorant, ridiculous, and hypocritical reasoning is not the norm for this forum. I'd rather reasonable people stick around and converse than be scared away by your posts immediately leaving them with the strong impression that this forum is dominated by really weird, cocky 7-year-olds.
4) Conversation and debate. It's the purpose of the forum. And I achieve the above 3 purposes just by honestly discussing the content which you post.

My participation is in the form of sincere debate. In this very thread, I have stated my argument that you are wrong on the facts repeatedly. This was entirely commentary on content, ie discussion. You chose not to respond. In this very thread, I have asked a number of legitimate questions. I honestly wanted to clarification of your position on the matters. I honestly wanted to know your answer. You chose not to respond.

Forums don't exist in vacuums: If you choose not to respond to legitimate and honest arguments and questions, that shows what it shows. If you have a problem with that, maybe forums aren't for you.

"It is not only a slander / libel suit against Kemp, a harassment suite, and perhaps hate crime suit as well."

It's not slander because this isn't the medium for that. It's not libel because I've said nothing which is not true. It'd still not be libel if I'd said anything arguably not true because it's arguably just my opinion. It's not harassment because I'm just commenting on the content of your posts.

You made ridiculous statements about self-replicating robot technology capable of doing all labor for mankind, given to mankind by aliens. I just discussed this content. If it's insane and I pointed this out, it's not harassment, it's acknowledgement that you said something absolutely insane.

In this thread you made atrociously ignorant remarks regarding ownership of rental properties as if owners are inherently stealing, in a manner of speaking, from renters. You proposed that owners should not make profits on their property. I asked why, without the capitalistic (free market) profit incentive to buy/build/maintain/rent, anyone would build/buy/own/maintain rental properties.

This is a simple, legitimate question. You decried profit as undesirable and even immoral in this instance. I asked you how the system would function to provide for consumers (renters) without the motivation of profit.

And to this simple, legitimate, common-sense question, you replied:
"He's cross the line on more than one occasion, if this were a Speaker's Corner session in Hyde Park,  he'd have been arrested, or if a comedy club, escorted off premises by security."

Ohnoes. He asked a question which made me realize I didn't think my position through. I refuse to think about or discuss my position. I object to anyone suggesting I do! He should be ARRESTED!

Troll is troll.

1,302

(46 replies, posted in Politics)

Naw. There's nothing to prove in that regard. The afore-mentioned ignorant, self-righteous females are, as a matter of fact, hypocrites. tongue

1,303

(93 replies, posted in Politics)

Don't point out what a tiny portion of co2 in the atmosphere man is responsible for and what a tiny role it has in earth's climate. I'm here to be entertained. The crying must not stop.

1,304

(93 replies, posted in Politics)

Help me? Are you like 5?

There has been climate change for as long as the earth existed--long before man. This is irrefutable 100% proof that mechanisms exist which naturally cause climate change. Whether or not man theorizes on mechanics or scientifically seeks evidence to validate theories on what those mechanics might be, we still know with 100% certainty that natural mechanics by which climate changes exist.

And you go on to demand I disprove obvious truths, with gems like "Show me how carbon-dioxide does not absorb radiation." My arguments never make such claims, nor are they predicated on such nonsense. As a supposed lover of science, you should know that such dishonest bullshit just insults everyone (including yourself) and is no form of legitimate dialogue.

The burden of proof is on you, dumbass. You're making a claim. I'm merely skeptical of that claim. I'm not arguing a null-hypothesis, I'm just arguing that you're full of shit and don't have any real science to back up your talk.

There are all kinds of systems on the earth. Earth heats up, more water becomes gaseous, more clouds form, more solar radiation is reflected out of the atmosphere, earth cools. BAM. There's a pointless example because we certainly can't model or do math on it on this forum or at all. The point remains, you're making big claims science can't back up. My knowledge of mechanics has nothing to do with it.

1,305

(93 replies, posted in Politics)

"my argument is those arguing that we are not causing it cannot provide any physical mechanisms to show how the changes are occurring otherwise"

You seem confused. Climate change is constant in earth's history. It has always changed. Ancient times? Changing. Modern times? Changing. And you're asking for mechanisms? You are confused.

1,306

(93 replies, posted in Politics)

We operate in secret. You are not worthy of the Dark Lord's wisdom!

1,307

(46 replies, posted in Politics)

I'd pay to see that.

1,308

(51 replies, posted in Politics)

That was stupid and pointless. And also my favorite 15 seconds of the day.

1,309

(93 replies, posted in Politics)

And taking this tale at its word is the same as trusting the pseudo scientists who tell us that man is certainly warming the climate!

1,310

(10 replies, posted in Politics)

Okay, that's pretty bad ass. But it's not deep enough to account for much of what is counted in the USA. So there's an inconsistency. And was such radar actually used in that survey? lol And how consistent is it, alone, in determining quantities of oil?

We have plenty of oil. I'm not disputing that. But your claim that we have 66% of the world's oil is just silly. tongue

1,311

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

But he wants to. It's necessary for his desired communist state.

1,312

(3 replies, posted in Politics)

I don't think they're really bailing on him. I think they're fully in line with his communist ideology.

But they want to make sure they're still a part of the ruling class as it gains more power. It's more of a tactical distancing. They still love him to death, they just have to keep that on the down-low while they campaign for a little while. Their constituents are stupid. They don't understand the glory of the New Amerikan Kommunist Party. They must be fooled for a time!

1,313

(93 replies, posted in Politics)

My argument, You_Fool, is that there's no science making a strong case for your claims.

You haven't even pointed to a single definitive study showing what you claim can be shown because none exists. All studies on the topic are hardly scientific. They work with very limited data and extrapolate to a ridiculous extent. They work with inconsistent instruments and frequently use subjective "adjustments" to correct for their insufficient instruments and insufficient data--and, sometimes, as has been exposed, these "corrections" are politically motivated to intentionally skew data. They're not producing any hard scientific findings.

I've repeatedly questioned the science behind your claims. There are very clear problems with the methods used. Repeatedly glossing over this fact is not very scientific of you.

1,314

(46 replies, posted in Politics)

I'm not excusing the pedophile scandal in the Church. Everyone involved should be locked up.

And I don't mean to downplay it, either. But it's an issue of corrupt douche bags covering up crimes. The Church does not condone their behavior. If you want to make the argument that the Church has been too hush about it and not proactive enough, I'll tend to agree. But the Church isn't looking the other way when all sorts of systemic injustices go on, as they do today in many Middle Eastern nations.

I'm not a big fan of the church, but I can certainly find more objectionable behavior going on in predominantly Islamic states than Christian states at the moment. It's often done not only without objections by Muslim leadership, but often with claims of authority in Muslim law.

1,315

(107 replies, posted in Politics)

You can't force that new government to be democratic with rockets. That requires an invasion and occupation. You claim we can force them. How?

You seem to have trouble understanding that we're talking about a foreign nation. It's real people in a real space on the earth. They don't care that you think they should have a democracy. You can't force anything on them by asking nicely.

Uncertainty does not mean we presume benevolence. That's just stupid.

1,316

(107 replies, posted in Politics)

If the rebels are only supported, you're simply trading one tyrant for another. How is that worth American lives, again?

How can they be worse? Read a little about history. Read a little about Middle Eastern cultures. Read about Middle Eastern criminal justice systems. Read about Middle Eastern crime and punishment. Read about female genital mutilation. Read about invasions of foreign nations. There's all kinds of worse.

1,317

(46 replies, posted in Politics)

I think the topic of this thread is current affairs oriented. tongue

Catholics condoned and/or ignored all kinds of horrific acts hundreds and thousands of years ago. Muslims condone and/or ignore horrible acts today.

Furthermore, the Koran itself isn't exactly centered around loving one's fellow man and forgiving one another. I don't have a problem with Muslims in general, but let's not pretend all major religions pray to the same god.

1,318

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

"Most of what they were saying I knew years ago."

You mean baseless communist conjecture.

"The notion that the elites have historically been willing to extract said repayments on debts owed to them by force, and thus spread desolation, destruction, war, mayhem, famine, and even collapse of their own civilization itself before agreeing to forgive said debts - debts which have typically grown to such an extent that it is literally impossible for them to be repaid"

That doesn't make any sense. We GIVE our poor massive amounts of money. Most welfare recipients have cable tv, cell phones, and air conditioning. Nobody's forcing anybody to go into debt. On top of this, we have bankruptcy laws; Nobody is forcing mayhem and famine on anybody on account of debts.

The debts that are our problem today are public debts.

Nothing you're saying makes any sense. This is only fitting, seeing as my simple questions baffled you previously and we've yet to see you answer a single one of them. You obviously know that you're ranting incoherently.

1,319

(107 replies, posted in Politics)

If you're arguing for an invasion, you can hardly make the argument it can be done with rockets and low casualties. You cannot force a government upon people with rockets. You can only aid whatever radicals rise to power next, as likely worse than Assad as better.

Yeah, not enough businesses have fled the state yet. They should ruin their economy more in the name of deficit reduction. I can't see any problems with that approach.

1,321

(82 replies, posted in Politics)

Sometimes I check out the retard crack head forums too. Good stuff. Not very educational, though.

1,322

(46 replies, posted in Politics)

Yeah she's not too bad.

http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2009/rachel_weisz_hot_girl_portrait.jpg
http://legacy.barstoolsports.com/_images/articles/2007/03/07/rachel_weisz02.jpg
http://www.newsgab.com/attachments/celebrity-pictures/226994d1260728513-rachel-weisz-gq-magazine-january-2010-black-bra-panties-rw.jpg

But I'd keep her in a cage.

1,323

(46 replies, posted in Politics)

We should thank them for it.

The only good commie is a dead commie.

1,324

(10 replies, posted in Politics)

And this can be achieved from orbit!

But wait you said 5km.

Having trouble with distances?

1,325

(93 replies, posted in Politics)

All that subjective garbage pretending to substitute for better data is not science.