http://gamingtrend.com
October 30, 2014, 07:00:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Debts, per President  (Read 10348 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #40 on: April 05, 2008, 06:00:44 PM »

Quote from: Eightball on April 04, 2008, 03:22:24 AM

Lol @ the idea of the Democrats actually kicking Schumer, Kerry, Dodd, and Wyden out of the Democratic Party.

Well, if you think it's an important enough issue, you are perfectly free to find someone to run against them.  You probably LOL'd at the thought of someone running against Zell Lieberman.

And I wonder how you can explain away Lieberman as an "outcast"... when he was the VP candidate in 2004.  By your logic, then, that also means Kerry, as the presidential candidate, is a vulnerable "outcast".  And perhaps by extension, so is Dodd, since he ran for the candidacy in 2008!

Sounds like you might have to really push on finding those primary challengers- those seats are up for grabs!

BTW, if you don't think Grover Norquist has any influence in the Republican party... you are very much fooling yourself.  When he says jump, the Repub rubber stamps ask how high.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 06:15:07 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2008, 02:09:59 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 05, 2008, 06:00:44 PM

Quote from: Eightball on April 04, 2008, 03:22:24 AM

Lol @ the idea of the Democrats actually kicking Schumer, Kerry, Dodd, and Wyden out of the Democratic Party.

And I wonder how you can explain away Lieberman as an "outcast"... when he was the VP candidate in 2004.  By your logic, then, that also means Kerry, as the presidential candidate, is a vulnerable "outcast".  And perhaps by extension, so is Dodd, since he ran for the candidacy in 2008!

Oh come on.  Lieberman is far more moderate than either Kerry or Dodd.

Let me know when Kerry or Dodd publicly say:

Quote
I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy.

He keeps insisting that we stay in Iraq, and publicly supported Alberto Gonzales' policy memo on torture as "reasonable."  He also strongly support NAFTA and was one of the people promoting the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, and remains a huge fan of it.

Do those positions sound like the ones the blue-blood democrats hold?

Oh and don't forget:

Quote
On November 7, Lieberman won reelection as an independent candidate with 50% of the vote. Democratic challenger Ned Lamont garnered 40% of ballots cast and Republican Alan Schlesinger won 10%.[106] Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of Independents, and 70% of Republicans. Despite still considering himself a Democrat, Lieberman was endorsed by numerous Republicans across the United States. They actively spoke out in favor of his candidacy. National conservative radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck were among those that endorsed Lieberman on their shows. Lieberman was also the focus of websites such as ConservativesforLieberman06.com.

Nothing says strong liberal to me like being supported by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity!

Quote
BTW, if you don't think Grover Norquist has any influence in the Republican party... you are very much fooling yourself.  When he says jump, the Repub rubber stamps ask how high.

Is that what I said?  Or was it that I said he didn't have a vote in Congress...which he does not.

Clearly, Grover Norquist and the K-Street lobbying firms have influence over the Republican Party. 

Clearly, the hedge fund managers and the K-Street lobbying firms also have immense influence over the Democratic Party.

Like I said before...the parties are really more alike than they are different.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 02:35:37 PM by Eightball » Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #42 on: April 07, 2008, 02:58:02 PM »

Quote from: Eightball on April 07, 2008, 02:09:59 PM

Do those positions sound like the ones the blue-blood democrats hold?

As I said, if they don't measure up to your standards... find someone to run against them!

I have nothing good to say about LIEberman, so I have no idea why you think I'm going to defend him.

The entire reason I brought up Lieberman was to illustrate a point: you state that someone these guys you talk about are secure in their seats.  But hey, Lieberman was the Democratic VP candidate, and he drummed out of the party two years later.

Like I say... if you have such a problem with certain people, you are more than welcome to find Democrats to run against them.  It may very well be the case that their constituents are looking for a good Democrat to run, like with Ned Lamont.

Quote
Quote
BTW, if you don't think Grover Norquist has any influence in the Republican party... you are very much fooling yourself.  When he says jump, the Repub rubber stamps ask how high.

Is that what I said?  Or was it that I said he didn't have a vote in Congress...which he does not.

What you said was a dismissal.  Just because someone doesn't have a vote in Congress does not mean they do not influence (or even dictate to) those who do vote in Congress.

Quote
Like I said before...the parties are really more alike than they are different.

I'm can't agree with that, just due to the natures of the voters.  The key difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republican leadership tells their voters what to think, whereas Democratic voters tend to already have their values, and will agree or disagree with their own elected officals and other people in the party.  The Democratic Party has a potential for change which isn't present in the Republican party.

Look at the stance on gun rights, for example: many if not most Dems are now supporting gun rights, and the Repubs are now starting to oppose them.  The forthcoming Supreme Court ruling may actually reveal how firmly against gun rights Republicans really are.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 03:11:20 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2008, 03:55:46 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 02:58:02 PM

As I said, if they don't measure up to your standards... find someone to run against them!

I don't care about that.  I care about your assertion they'll run these people off like they did Lieberman.  There is no way the two situations are even close.

Quote
The entire reason I brought up Lieberman was to illustrate a point: you state that someone these guys you talk about are secure in their seats.  But hey, Lieberman was the Democratic VP candidate, and he drummed out of the party two years later.

In all honesty, being nominated for VP doesn't mean a whole lot, as the position (traditionally, pre-Cheney) is a worthless figurehead.  Presidential nominee means much more.

Quote
Quote
Like I said before...the parties are really more alike than they are different.

I'm can't agree with that, just due to the natures of the voters.  The key difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Republican leadership tells their voters what to think, whereas Democratic voters tend to already have their values, and will agree or disagree with their own elected officals and other people in the party.  The Democratic Party has a potential for change which isn't present in the Republican party.

Oh please.  Like I said before, I tend democrat.  I live in a very blue state (Maryland), and I know that assertion is false.  Democrats are traditionally about the nanny-state; telling people what they can and cannot do. 

Banning smoking in public restaurants (fine).  But democratic-led legislative bodies take it further and banning smoking in bars and all other public places (which is stupid, as the scientific data are simply not there to support such a far-reaching ban).  Car seats are a good thing; but they've shown demonstrably less effect for kids as they get older; but democratic led initiatives require kids to be in car seats until they're 8.  Even though the data isn't there to support it, either.

Quote
Look at the stance on gun rights, for example: many if not most Dems are now supporting gun rights, and the Repubs are now starting to oppose them.  The forthcoming Supreme Court ruling may actually reveal how firmly against gun rights Republicans really are.

As I posted elsewhere, there is a huge difference between your NeoCon conspiracy, and the ideology of the conservative supreme court justices, who often have disagreed with Bush's idea of government.  Also, you're making some bold assertion; please provide some cites that show more democrats are supporting gun rights, and more republicans are opposing them.  Don't link google; I want specific and multiple cites for such a bold assertion of a huge sea-change.

« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 03:58:53 PM by Eightball » Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2008, 04:48:59 PM »

Quote from: Eightball on April 07, 2008, 03:55:46 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 02:58:02 PM

As I said, if they don't measure up to your standards... find someone to run against them!

I don't care about that.  I care about your assertion they'll run these people off like they did Lieberman.  There is no way the two situations are even close.

So in other words, you choose complaining to action.  I understand.  Sympathize, even.

Quote
In all honesty, being nominated for VP doesn't mean a whole lot, as the position (traditionally, pre-Cheney) is a worthless figurehead.  Presidential nominee means much more.

Tell that to Al Gore, or GHW Bush, or all the past VPs (or VP nominees) who weren't drummed out of the party two years afterword.

Quote
Oh please.  Like I said before, I tend democrat.  I live in a very blue state (Maryland), and I know that assertion is false.  Democrats are traditionally about the nanny-state; telling people what they can and cannot do.

That's just more parrotting conservative talking points than reality.  I think you are confusing the local politics of your area with the broader, nationwide Democratic party.  Don't confuse Maryland with the rest of the nation.

Quote
Banning smoking in public restaurants (fine).  But democratic-led legislative bodies take it further and banning smoking in bars and all other public places (which is stupid, as the scientific data are simply not there to support such a far-reaching ban).

That's a worker safety issue.  Why should people who work in bars and restaurants be forced to breathe in carcinogenic smoke?  No other workplace in the nation tolerates that.  Take it up with OSHA if you don't like it.  Maybe they can make coal mines less safe, too.  Oh wait, nevermind- that one's already been acheived.

Quote
Car seats are a good thing; but they've shown demonstrably less effect for kids as they get older; but democratic led initiatives require kids to be in car seats until they're 8.  Even though the data isn't there to support it, either.

I don't see what this has to do with the subject... or even the sidetrack subject.

Quote
Quote
Look at the stance on gun rights, for example: many if not most Dems are now supporting gun rights, and the Repubs are now starting to oppose them.  The forthcoming Supreme Court ruling may actually reveal how firmly against gun rights Republicans really are.

As I posted elsewhere, there is a huge difference between your NeoCon conspiracy, and the ideology of the conservative supreme court justices, who often have disagreed with Bush's idea of government.  Also, you're making some bold assertion; please provide some cites that show more democrats are supporting gun rights, and more republicans are opposing them.  Don't link google; I want specific and multiple cites for such a bold assertion of a huge sea-change.

Yes, they disagreed so often they placed him in office.  What issues they disagree with him on which didn't support the overall NeoCon agenda?  Just because they seemed to oppose an issue does not mean it was a "loss" for the overall agenda.  It's all about peeling the onion onward to that NeoCon paradise.


But regardless of that, my point is that the Republican leadership did not support gun rights, they simply opposed the Democrats.  If the Dems come out against cancer, that means the Repubs are for it.  Which isn't an exageration, since the Repubs still carry water for big tobacco, the indiscriminant dumping of toxic waste, the "rights" of big businesses to pollute without restraints, etc.  The Repubs also oppose stem cell research, health care for children, etc.

Gun rights was just a way for them to pander to a certain demographic, in the same way they pander to the anti-gay movement, and the anti-minority movement, and the Theocratic movement.  This may be shocking... but the Republican leadership honestly doesn't care about any of that beyond how much power these groups are willing to give them.  Once they are no longer able to get the blank check support of any group, they cut them loose- as we will see with the NRA vote.

Notice how much the Republicans supported the rights of gun owners in New Orleans.  Which was to say, not at all.  But that's because it was Democrats with guns, rather than Republicans with guns.

Contrast that with the general Democratic movement, which will always support civil rights, will always support social justice, etc.  If a candidate stops doing so, they will obviously lose many of their Democratic supporters.  Just ask Zell Lieberman.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 05:00:17 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: April 07, 2008, 08:44:52 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 04:48:59 PM

So in other words, you choose complaining to action.  I understand.  Sympathize, even.

I'm not a registered Democrat.  I vote democrat, but it's not my party.  I guess you missed that part?  I can't even vote in the primaries in my state.

Not.  My.  Job.

Quote
In all honesty, being nominated for VP doesn't mean a whole lot, as the position (traditionally, pre-Cheney) is a worthless figurehead.  Presidential nominee means much more.

Tell that to Al Gore, or GHW Bush, or all the past VPs (or VP nominees) who weren't drummed out of the party two years afterword.[/quote]

Lol amusing.  The nomination, in and of itself does not mean much.  There, I spelled it out better for you.

Afterwards?  Or did you really mean afterword?

Quote
That's just more parrotting conservative talking points than reality. 

I wonder why I'd be parroting (sp.) conservative talking points, when I never read or listen to conservative talkshows et. al.  I DO read the Washington Post, that veritable bastion of conservatism.

Quote
That's a worker safety issue.  Why should people who work in bars and restaurants be forced to breathe in carcinogenic smoke?  No other workplace in the nation tolerates that.

Hello to you, health care workers in hospitals that use gas anesthesia (i.e. all of them)?  Or lab workers working with ethidium bromide?

Quote
Car seats are a good thing; but they've shown demonstrably less effect for kids as they get older; but democratic led initiatives require kids to be in car seats until they're 8.  Even though the data isn't there to support it, either.

I don't see what this has to do with the subject... or even the sidetrack subject.[/quote]

You wouldn't, would you?  Some people like having the government tell them what to do.  I'm not one of them.

Quote
As I posted elsewhere, there is a huge difference between your NeoCon conspiracy, and the ideology of the conservative supreme court justices, who often have disagreed with Bush's idea of government.  Also, you're making some bold assertion; please provide some cites that show more democrats are supporting gun rights, and more republicans are opposing them.  Don't link google; I want specific and multiple cites for such a bold assertion of a huge sea-change.

Yes, they disagreed so often they placed him in office.  [/quote]

You'll be horrified to hear that when they "put Bush in office" it was a liberal-controlled Supreme Court.  And one of the crucial votes was 6-3

Maybe, just maybe, it had to do with the law and not politics?

Quote
The remedy of ceasing all recounts was approved by five to four. (Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist,[26] Scalia and Thomas in support[2]; Breyer,[27] Ginsburg, Souter[28] and Stevens opposed)
Seven justices (the five Justice majority and Breyer and Souter in dissent) initially agreed upon review that there might be Equal Protection issues in using different standards of counting in different counties. Although seven ended up determining there was indeed an Equal Protection violation, especially due to the fact that different standards are always used to count votes in a presidential election, only five agreed the recounts should stop. Two wanted to remand the case back to the Florida Supreme Court to permit the court to establish uniform standards of what constitutes a legal vote and then manually recount all ballots using those standards.
The view that the Florida Supreme Court acted contrary to the intent of the Florida legislature was rejected by six of the nine justices. (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in support; Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter and Stevens opposed)

Right.

Quote
What issues they disagree with him on which didn't support the overall NeoCon agenda?  Just because they seemed to oppose an issue does not mean it was a "loss" for the overall agenda.  It's all about peeling the onion onward to that NeoCon paradise.

Do you even know what Hamdi (the case) stood for?

Quote
But regardless of that, my point is that the Republican leadership did not support gun rights, they simply opposed the Democrats.  If the Dems come out against cancer, that means the Repubs are for it.  Which isn't an exageration, since the Repubs still carry water for big tobacco, the indiscriminant dumping of toxic waste, the "rights" of big businesses to pollute without restraints, etc.  The Repubs also oppose stem cell research, health care for children, etc.

Right, so republicans only exist to be contrary to the people-loving democrats?

Those people-loving democrats who refuse to tax their money-men.  I mean, we don't need 6 billion more in tax revenue every year, right?

Quote

Gun rights was just a way for them to pander to a certain demographic, in the same way they pander to the anti-gay movement, and the anti-minority movement, and the Theocratic movement.  This may be shocking... but the Republican leadership honestly doesn't care about any of that beyond how much power these groups are willing to give them.  Once they are no longer able to get the blank check support of any group, they cut them loose- as we will see with the NRA vote.

Cite to anything?  Yes, I know, google.  Others?

Quote
Contrast that with the general Democratic movement, which will always support civil rights, will always support social justice, etc. 

Lol always

Sure, it's fair that their contributors, people wealthy to the extreme, continue to be taxed at 15%.  That's justice.

That's okay, go ahead and respond with more strawmen, and please, continue to persist in citing zero sources to back up your statements.  I'm done.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2008, 09:17:06 PM »

Quote from: Eightball on April 07, 2008, 08:44:52 PM


You'll be horrified to hear that when they "put Bush in office" it was a liberal-controlled Supreme Court. 

You just lost all validity to your post.  No one would call that court liberal.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2008, 09:27:03 PM »

Quote from: Eightball on April 07, 2008, 08:44:52 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 04:48:59 PM

So in other words, you choose complaining to action.  I understand.  Sympathize, even.

I'm not a registered Democrat.  I vote democrat, but it's not my party.  I guess you missed that part?  I can't even vote in the primaries in my state.

Not.  My.  Job.

I didn't realize you had to be a voter to find somebody to challenge an incumbent in a primary.  Actually, I didn't even know you had to be in that state or region to do so.

Quote
Quote
Quote
In all honesty, being nominated for VP doesn't mean a whole lot, as the position (traditionally, pre-Cheney) is a worthless figurehead.  Presidential nominee means much more.

Tell that to Al Gore, or GHW Bush, or all the past VPs (or VP nominees) who weren't drummed out of the party two years afterword.

Lol amusing.  The nomination, in and of itself does not mean much.  There, I spelled it out better for you.

And yet, you used that exact criteria to explain why Kerry and Dodd were such entrenched and undefeatable incumbents.

Quote

If you want correct my typos, become an editor.  But you should probably be aware that it doesn't really do much to support your claims.

Quote
Quote
That's just more parrotting conservative talking points than reality. 

I wonder why I'd be parroting (sp.) conservative talking points, when I never read or listen to conservative talkshows et. al.  I DO read the Washington Post, that veritable bastion of conservatism.

Just about all the media is chanting conservative talking points.  So that's hardly surprising.

And again, while your editor skills may be leet (uber, even), it does extremely little to support any point you may be making (unless your point IS that I don't proof read as well as I should, but that probably doesn't need to be discussed in the R&P area.  Please don't get this thread moved to Off Topic  icon_biggrin ).

Quote
Quote
That's a worker safety issue.  Why should people who work in bars and restaurants be forced to breathe in carcinogenic smoke?  No other workplace in the nation tolerates that.

Hello to you, health care workers in hospitals that use gas anesthesia (i.e. all of them)?  Or lab workers working with ethidium bromide?

Take it up with OSHA, as I already said (and you omitted from my quote).  But I'll bet there are far, far, far more people working in the service industry than either of the two jobs you cited.  "They do it to" is not a reason for ignoring workplace safety... it's a reason for correcting those other unsafe jobs.

Quote
Quote
Car seats are a good thing; but they've shown demonstrably less effect for kids as they get older; but democratic led initiatives require kids to be in car seats until they're 8.  Even though the data isn't there to support it, either.

I don't see what this has to do with the subject... or even the sidetrack subject.

You wouldn't, would you?  Some people like having the government tell them what to do.  I'm not one of them.[/quote]

Go cry me a river.  Seat belts save lives.  If you feel your children's lives are worth so little that you won't make them use a seat belt inside the car, they shouldn't have to pay the price.  I'll bet you oppose SCHIP too.

Quote
Quote
Quote
As I posted elsewhere, there is a huge difference between your NeoCon conspiracy, and the ideology of the conservative supreme court justices, who often have disagreed with Bush's idea of government.  Also, you're making some bold assertion; please provide some cites that show more democrats are supporting gun rights, and more republicans are opposing them.  Don't link google; I want specific and multiple cites for such a bold assertion of a huge sea-change.

Yes, they disagreed so often they placed him in office. 

You'll be horrified to hear that when they "put Bush in office" it was a liberal-controlled Supreme Court.  And one of the crucial votes was 6-3

What makes you think it was a liberal controlled supreme court?  I keep hearing that bullshit, but chanting that mantra doesn't make it true.  Sandra Day O'Connor, despite the far-rightist mantra that she's a liberal, is absolutely not true.  She is a life-long conservative, in fact (although not an absolute rightwing extremist like Scalia and Thomas).

Just more parotting of right wing talking points, rather than a substantial statement of fact.

Quote
Maybe, just maybe, it had to do with the law and not politics?

Is that why the SCOTUS not only made an unprecedented decision, but stated that their decision cannot be used to set other precedents (which itself has zero basis in law or precedent)?

LOL, if you are going to try to defend Bush v. Gore... good luck on that one.

Quote
Quote
What issues they disagree with him on which didn't support the overall NeoCon agenda?  Just because they seemed to oppose an issue does not mean it was a "loss" for the overall agenda.  It's all about peeling the onion onward to that NeoCon paradise.

Do you even know what Hamdi (the case) stood for?

No, nor do I care.  I'm not playing your game of citing one tiny insignificant example and using that to create a smoke screen.  The simple fact is, the NeoCon agenda has won far more than it's lost with this extremist SCOTUS.  One case here or there doesn't change that.

Quote
Right, so republicans only exist to be contrary to the people-loving democrats?

Those people-loving democrats who refuse to tax their money-men.  I mean, we don't need 6 billion more in tax revenue every year, right?

Nice straw man.  I've never said all members of the Democratic party are flawless and honest bastions of flawless honesty.  But hey, keep making yourself look silly by claiming I do.

The key difference between Democrats and Republicans, as I said, is that it's possible for the Democratic party to improve.  The Republican constituency puts zero energy into scrutinizing the activities of it's leadership, while Democratic voters will.

So, as I said, if you have a beef with certain people, find someone to run against them.  If not... keep whining about it.

Quote
Quote
Gun rights was just a way for them to pander to a certain demographic, in the same way they pander to the anti-gay movement, and the anti-minority movement, and the Theocratic movement.  This may be shocking... but the Republican leadership honestly doesn't care about any of that beyond how much power these groups are willing to give them.  Once they are no longer able to get the blank check support of any group, they cut them loose- as we will see with the NRA vote.

Cite to anything?  Yes, I know, google.  Others?

Cite me.  I don't need other people to figure out for me what's going on.  You may regurgitate other's opinions, but I don't really have to.

It's a little something we call "thinking for oneself".

But hey, like I said, it's completely provable.  Just wait and see whether I'm right or not.  It wont be long now.

Quote
Quote
Contrast that with the general Democratic movement, which will always support civil rights, will always support social justice, etc. 

Lol always

Sure.  If the Democratic party changes, the liberals will just go elsewhere.  Unlike Republicans, who will stand by their man.

Quote
Sure, it's fair that their contributors, people wealthy to the extreme, continue to be taxed at 15%.  That's justice.

That's okay, go ahead and respond with more strawmen, and please, continue to persist in citing zero sources to back up your statements.  I'm done.

Funny that you mention the straw man, since you keep whipping out your straw man issue.

Fuck, I already agreed with your point questioning income discrimination over eight years ago.  But it seems some people can't accept agreement for an answer.

[edit] I messed up quite a few quote brackets
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 10:18:48 PM by unbreakable » Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5365


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2008, 10:05:59 PM »

Given that Eightball is a lawyer in Washington DC, and you're not, Unbreakable, I tend to think that anything he says about the Supreme Court holds FAR more weight than anything you can come up with.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2008, 10:13:05 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on April 07, 2008, 10:05:59 PM

Given that Eightball is a lawyer in Washington DC, and you're not, Unbreakable, I tend to think that anything he says about the Supreme Court holds FAR more weight than anything you can come up with.

Yes, because obviously every lawyer in Washington DC is a supreme expert on all subjects, and I should just bow my peasant head to their greater lordly wisdom.   Roll Eyes
Logged
Exodor
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 484


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: April 07, 2008, 10:19:46 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 04:48:59 PM

Contrast that with the general Democratic movement, which will always support civil rights, will always support social justice, etc.  If a candidate stops doing so, they will obviously lose many of their Democratic supporters.  Just ask Zell Lieberman.

Always?

Who championed don't ask, don't tell again?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #51 on: April 07, 2008, 10:25:21 PM »

Quote from: Exodor on April 07, 2008, 10:19:46 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 04:48:59 PM

Contrast that with the general Democratic movement, which will always support civil rights, will always support social justice, etc.  If a candidate stops doing so, they will obviously lose many of their Democratic supporters.  Just ask Zell Lieberman.

Always?

Who championed don't ask, don't tell again?

Liberals?  Who champions gay rights every time?  Liberals?

As I said: the Democratic party leadership is not liberalism.  They don't dictate to us what to believe.  If the party starts moving away from us, we either take it back or we make a better party.  Contrast that with conservativism, which will always be tied to the Republican party, even if it has to become a sidelined regional party (as we are seeing right now).

Here's a great illustration of my point: all the time you hear people describe themselves as "Goldwater Conservatives", or "Reagan Conservatives", or whatever other Republican Big Daddy they are currently drooling over.  But do you ever hear anyone describe themselves as a "Kennedy Liberal", or a "Clinton Liberal" (aside from maybe some politician)?  No.  Because liberals don't engage in this daddy/hero worship conservatives do.  It's just not our style.  Now of course there are exceptions (plenty, I'm sure), but in general it's close enough to be an accurate summary of a political situation.

I once described myself, jokingly, as a "Patrick Henry Liberal", but that only because of his "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" quote, not because I actually vowed to conform to his entire belief system.  Contrast that with, say, John McClone McCain, who has to check his "What GWB Believes" manual every time someone asks his opinion on an issue.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 10:43:28 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Exodor
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 484


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: April 07, 2008, 10:43:15 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 10:25:21 PM

Quote from: Exodor on April 07, 2008, 10:19:46 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 04:48:59 PM

Contrast that with the general Democratic movement, which will always support civil rights, will always support social justice, etc.  If a candidate stops doing so, they will obviously lose many of their Democratic supporters.  Just ask Zell Lieberman.

Always?

Who championed don't ask, don't tell again?

Liberals?  Who champions gay rights every time?  Liberals?

You just said the Democratic "movement" (WTF is the Democratic movement anyway?  I think I had one of those after the last time I had bad Mexican food) always champions social justice and civil rights.

Apparently always doesn't include gays in the military.


Quote
Because liberals don't engage in this daddy/hero worship conservatives do. 

Have you ever seen an Obama rally? 
Logged
th'FOOL
Executive Producer and Editor-At-Large
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5016


Never whistle while you're pissing


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 07, 2008, 11:46:53 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 10:13:05 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on April 07, 2008, 10:05:59 PM

Given that Eightball is a lawyer in Washington DC, and you're not, Unbreakable, I tend to think that anything he says about the Supreme Court holds FAR more weight than anything you can come up with.

Yes, because obviously every lawyer in Washington DC is a supreme expert on all subjects, and I should just bow my peasant head to their greater lordly wisdom.   Roll Eyes

No, you're more like a teenager claiming to be an expert at fucking because you've watched a bunch of pornos and Eightball is Ron Jeremy.

Or as Bob Odenkirk once said: "I don't come down to where you work and pull the dick out of your mouth, do I?"
Logged

Mike Dunn
Executive Producer & Managing Editor, GamingTrend
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #54 on: April 07, 2008, 11:54:08 PM »

Wow dude, that's so far outside the code of conduct, or just common decency, I'm speechless that you would even post it.
Logged
th'FOOL
Executive Producer and Editor-At-Large
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5016


Never whistle while you're pissing


View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: April 07, 2008, 11:59:13 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 11:54:08 PM

Wow dude, that's so far outside the code of conduct, or just common decency, I'm speechless that you would even post it.

You've obviously never seen Mr. Show.   Tongue
Logged

Mike Dunn
Executive Producer & Managing Editor, GamingTrend
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #56 on: April 08, 2008, 12:00:35 AM »

Quote from: Exodor on April 07, 2008, 10:43:15 PM

You just said the Democratic "movement" (WTF is the Democratic movement anyway?  I think I had one of those after the last time I had bad Mexican food)

No, I'm pretty sure you had a conservative movement.

Quote
always[/i] champions social justice and civil rights.

Apparently always doesn't include gays in the military.

Since when don't liberal voters not support gays in the military?  ACLU much?

Oh that's right... according to conservatives, the ACLU is a fascist organization.  Cuz we all know how big Fascists are on civil rights  Roll Eyes

So let me know how much conservatives support gay rights, mkay?
 
Quote
Quote
Because liberals don't engage in this daddy/hero worship conservatives do. 

Have you ever seen an Obama rally?

RTFP:

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 10:25:21 PM

Now of course there are exceptions (plenty, I'm sure), but in general it's close enough to be an accurate summary of a political situation.

As for this:

Quote from: th'FOOL on April 07, 2008, 11:59:13 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 11:54:08 PM

Wow dude, that's so far outside the code of conduct, or just common decency, I'm speechless that you would even post it.

You've obviously never seen Mr. Show.   Tongue

No, but I have seen the "report to moderator" link.
Logged
th'FOOL
Executive Producer and Editor-At-Large
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5016


Never whistle while you're pissing


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 08, 2008, 12:05:06 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 08, 2008, 12:00:35 AM

As for this:

Quote from: th'FOOL on April 07, 2008, 11:59:13 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 11:54:08 PM

Wow dude, that's so far outside the code of conduct, or just common decency, I'm speechless that you would even post it.

You've obviously never seen Mr. Show.   Tongue

No, but I have seen the "report to moderator" link.

Oh, I know.  I got the email.

The quote was from a Mr. Show episode- sketch comedy.  You can bypass Google entirely and go straight to Youtube for that one.  It's funny stuff, you should check it out sometime.
Logged

Mike Dunn
Executive Producer & Managing Editor, GamingTrend
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #58 on: April 08, 2008, 12:07:37 AM »

I dont care where it's from.  I don't find it an appropriate thing to bring into the discussion.

If I said the same thing to you, you'd have gone ballistic, and been calling for me to get banned.
Logged
th'FOOL
Executive Producer and Editor-At-Large
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5016


Never whistle while you're pissing


View Profile WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 08, 2008, 12:14:54 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 08, 2008, 12:07:37 AM

I dont care where it's from.  I don't find it an appropriate thing to bring into the discussion.

If I said the same thing to you, you'd have gone ballistic, and been calling for me to get banned.

Nope, I would have laughed my ass off because I've seen Mr. Show and given you props.  Even if I hadn't seen it I'd think it was pretty funny.

Also, for the record, I have never publicly called for your bannination.  If you want to discuss this further we can certainly do it via PM, as this thread has already been sufficiently derailed.
Logged

Mike Dunn
Executive Producer & Managing Editor, GamingTrend
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #60 on: April 08, 2008, 12:20:31 AM »

I seriously doubt you would have laughed.  You've gone pretty ballistic at some pretty innocuous jokes on my part.

Personally, I think it would be appropriate for you to edit out or delete the post.  I'd even feel free to consider the matter closed at that point.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 12:23:08 AM by unbreakable » Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 08, 2008, 12:22:28 AM »

Quote from: th'FOOL on April 08, 2008, 12:14:54 AM

Also, for the record, I have never publicly called for your bannination.  If you want to discuss this further we can certainly do it via PM, as this thread has already been sufficiently derailed.

Yes -- let's get the thread back to vague over-generalizations, blatant self-righteousness, narrow-mindedness and personal attacks and off of sketch comedy please!!!!
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #62 on: April 08, 2008, 12:30:23 AM »

Well I just think it's interesting that when MSDuncan was playing climatologist on TV, Mike didn't chime in and imply that MSD sucks dick at work.  And yet somehow it's appropriate to do it to me, because I'm not agreeing with the legal views of a right leaning lawyer who is probably speaking outside his area of expertise.

So hey, let us know if there is a code of conduct which applies to us "little people", and a different one which applies to GT staff.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 01:52:53 AM by unbreakable » Logged
Exodor
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 484


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: April 08, 2008, 01:57:24 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 08, 2008, 12:00:35 AM

No, I'm pretty sure you had a conservative movement.

Wait - did you just imply I'm a conservative?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy shit. 

Quote
Since when don't liberal voters not support gays in the military?  ACLU much?

WTF?  You said DEMOCRATS were "always" champions of social justice.

Yet Bill Clinton pushed through "don't ask, don't tell", hardly a shining moment in equal rights for gays.

What party does Bill endlessly shill for?

Quote
So let me know how much conservatives support gay rights, mkay?

Let me know when I make such a claim.  I'm just having fun with your generalizations and championing of the Democratic party as a shining beacon of justice and righteousness. 


Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #64 on: April 08, 2008, 02:13:08 AM »

Quote from: th'FOOL on April 07, 2008, 11:46:53 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 10:13:05 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on April 07, 2008, 10:05:59 PM

Given that Eightball is a lawyer in Washington DC, and you're not, Unbreakable, I tend to think that anything he says about the Supreme Court holds FAR more weight than anything you can come up with.

Yes, because obviously every lawyer in Washington DC is a supreme expert on all subjects, and I should just bow my peasant head to their greater lordly wisdom.   Roll Eyes

No, you're more like a teenager claiming to be an expert at fucking because you've watched a bunch of pornos and Eightball is Ron Jeremy.

Or as Bob Odenkirk once said: "I don't come down to where you work and pull the dick out of your mouth, do I?"

I gotta think that if any non-staff member posted that, they'd have earned a two week involuntary vacation.  Poor taste and worse execution.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #65 on: April 08, 2008, 02:22:01 AM »

Quote from: Exodor on April 08, 2008, 01:57:24 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 08, 2008, 12:00:35 AM

No, I'm pretty sure you had a conservative movement.

Wait - did you just imply I'm a conservative?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy shit. 

Um... no...

Quote
Quote
Since when don't liberal voters not support gays in the military?  ACLU much?

WTF?  You said DEMOCRATS were "always" champions of social justice.

Yet Bill Clinton pushed through "don't ask, don't tell", hardly a shining moment in equal rights for gays.

What party does Bill endlessly shill for?

In case you haven't noticed, I've been talking about the people, not the party leadership.  But hey, keep trying to say Democrats support every single position the party leadership takes.  I love seeing people argue against reality.

Quote
Quote
So let me know how much conservatives support gay rights, mkay?

Let me know when I make such a claim.  I'm just having fun with your generalizations and championing of the Democratic party as a shining beacon of justice and righteousness. 

You really, really, really need to read my posts before clicking that "reply" button.  You miss just oh so much stuff.

Like, you know, this little gem:

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 09:27:03 PM

I've never said all members of the Democratic party are flawless and honest bastions of flawless honesty.  But hey, keep making yourself look silly by claiming I do.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 02:24:05 AM by unbreakable » Logged
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4681



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: April 08, 2008, 02:22:19 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on April 08, 2008, 02:13:08 AM

Quote from: th'FOOL on April 07, 2008, 11:46:53 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 10:13:05 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on April 07, 2008, 10:05:59 PM

Given that Eightball is a lawyer in Washington DC, and you're not, Unbreakable, I tend to think that anything he says about the Supreme Court holds FAR more weight than anything you can come up with.

Yes, because obviously every lawyer in Washington DC is a supreme expert on all subjects, and I should just bow my peasant head to their greater lordly wisdom.   Roll Eyes

No, you're more like a teenager claiming to be an expert at fucking because you've watched a bunch of pornos and Eightball is Ron Jeremy.

Or as Bob Odenkirk once said: "I don't come down to where you work and pull the dick out of your mouth, do I?"

I gotta think that if any non-staff member posted that, they'd have earned a two week involuntary vacation.  Poor taste and worse execution.

Don't worry it's being addressed.
Logged
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4681



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: April 08, 2008, 02:22:51 AM »

Lets all take a step back for a bit and cool off.

Don't make me lock Knightshade Dragon's thread biggrin  That will be a first and my eventual firing biggrin
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 02:34:06 AM by naednek » Logged
DarkEL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2931



View Profile WWW
« Reply #68 on: April 08, 2008, 03:57:59 AM »

Quote from: naednek on April 08, 2008, 02:22:19 AM

Don't worry it's being addressed.

.... in the redesign!!!!!!!!!!


ba da dam!
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: April 08, 2008, 12:20:54 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 10:25:21 PM

As I said: the Democratic party leadership is not liberalism.  They don't dictate to us what to believe.  If the party starts moving away from us, we either take it back or we make a better party.  Contrast that with conservatism, which will always be tied to the Republican party, even if it has to become a sidelined regional party (as we are seeing right now).

Maybe I'm imagining this but it always seems to me that Republican candidates try to paint themselves as conservatives in a general election while in many cases Democrats try hard not to be labeled as liberals.  Even this year I am guessing that you will see either Obama or Clinton move more to the right as we get closer to November in their rhetoric, while McCain also moves right to court the conservative base.  At it's core I still think there are more people who identify themselves as conservatives opposed to liberals, especially among those who actually vote.  But the vast majority of Americans would call themselves moderates, willing to vote for either party depending on the conditions in the country at the time.  Both parties have to stay near the center to remain competitive in a national election.
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: April 08, 2008, 02:43:09 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on April 08, 2008, 12:20:54 PM

At it's core I still think there are more people who identify themselves as conservatives opposed to liberals, especially among those who actually vote. 

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: April 08, 2008, 02:54:55 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on April 08, 2008, 02:43:09 PM

Quote from: denoginizer on April 08, 2008, 12:20:54 PM

At it's core I still think there are more people who identify themselves as conservatives opposed to liberals, especially among those who actually vote.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

That article refers to people identifying themselves at Republicans or Democrats, not conservatives or liberals. "Conservatives" and "Republicans are not necessarily the same thing.  Many conservatives have left the Republican party because they hate the big government/big spending ways of the Bush administration.  While they have left the republican party, they have in most cases become independents, instead of democrats.  The article seems to support that theory.

Quote
Despite these trends, the proportion of voters who identify with the Democratic Party outright has not increased in recent years. Currently, 36% say they think of themselves as a Democrat, virtually unchanged from 2004 (35%) and 2000 (35%). Instead, as the proportion of  Republicans has decreased, the percentage of independents has grown substantially, from 32% in 2004 to 37% today.

For the most part the numbers in the article certainly seem to point to a Democratic vicory in November.  Even without a war and impending recession, it has always been very difficult for one party to win 3 consecutive presidential elections.  The nation is swinging back to the left. No big surprise there. 
« Last Edit: April 08, 2008, 02:58:55 PM by denoginizer » Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #72 on: April 08, 2008, 05:35:32 PM »

Quote from: denoginizer on April 08, 2008, 12:20:54 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 10:25:21 PM

As I said: the Democratic party leadership is not liberalism.  They don't dictate to us what to believe.  If the party starts moving away from us, we either take it back or we make a better party.  Contrast that with conservatism, which will always be tied to the Republican party, even if it has to become a sidelined regional party (as we are seeing right now).

Maybe I'm imagining this but it always seems to me that Republican candidates try to paint themselves as conservatives in a general election while in many cases Democrats try hard not to be labeled as liberals.

IMO, that's a huge mistake.  People used to proudly call themselves liberals, then bought into the rhetoric of Reagan and GHW Bush using the term as a swear word.  Avoiding the word just made their propaganda even more powerful.

Considering that "conservative" is starting to become a swear word in many circles, when it comes to defining ourselves as liberals, we are "taking it back".  Which is pretty easy to do, since as the country moved more and more away from liberalism, the worse it's become.

People do, and will likely continue to, use the definition "progressive", but IMO that's just a different word for the same beliefs.

I've always been happy to call myself a liberal, and will always do so.  When people want to lie about what that ethos stands for, that's their problem.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #73 on: April 08, 2008, 11:31:02 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on April 07, 2008, 09:17:06 PM

Quote from: Eightball on April 07, 2008, 08:44:52 PM


You'll be horrified to hear that when they "put Bush in office" it was a liberal-controlled Supreme Court. 

You just lost all validity to your post.  No one would call that court liberal.

Still waiting a response...how do you call the Supreme Court in 2000 "liberal"?

Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: April 09, 2008, 01:54:40 AM »

Quote from: Blackadar on April 08, 2008, 11:31:02 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on April 07, 2008, 09:17:06 PM

Quote from: Eightball on April 07, 2008, 08:44:52 PM


You'll be horrified to hear that when they "put Bush in office" it was a liberal-controlled Supreme Court. 

You just lost all validity to your post.  No one would call that court liberal.

Still waiting a response...how do you call the Supreme Court in 2000 "liberal"?



Sorry, I was ignoring this thread, as the main person I was trying to dialogue with is completely hopeless.

To solely respond to your point:

You're correct in that it's not liberal as the Warren Court was liberal. 

What I really meant is more liberal court than we have now (as replacing O'Conner with Alito is most certainly a shift towards the conservative side).

The more important point I was trying to make is that the Bush v. Gore case was decided by jurists regarded as liberals (Breyer and Souter) and on the court siding "against" Gore in multiple issues of the case.  It wasn't a decision by a conservative junta by any stretch.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #75 on: April 12, 2008, 10:04:47 PM »

Quote from: Eightball on April 09, 2008, 01:54:40 AM

What I really meant is more liberal court than we have now (as replacing O'Conner with Alito is most certainly a shift towards the conservative side).

O'Connor was a life-long conservative.  So how does that somehow support your point?  Unless you mean that Alito is more likely to side with made up bullshit justifications than O'Connor, in which you would be correct.

Quote
The more important point I was trying to make is that the Bush v. Gore case was decided by jurists regarded as liberals (Breyer and Souter) and on the court siding "against" Gore in multiple issues of the case.  It wasn't a decision by a conservative junta by any stretch.

Of course it was.  But rather than view the conservative decision as reflecting on how truly liberal those people actually were, you just want to "share the blame", whether it's true or not.  And you got called on it.

The "Liberal" Supreme Court supports conservatives, the "Liberal" media supports conservatives, the "Liberal" Congress is responsible for Bush's war in Iraq, etc.  See?  Conservatives can do no wrong, even when they do.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2008, 10:06:49 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: April 13, 2008, 12:36:12 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 12, 2008, 10:04:47 PM

Quote from: Eightball on April 09, 2008, 01:54:40 AM

What I really meant is more liberal court than we have now (as replacing O'Conner with Alito is most certainly a shift towards the conservative side).

O'Connor was a life-long conservative.  So how does that somehow support your point?  Unless you mean that Alito is more likely to side with made up bullshit justifications than O'Connor, in which you would be correct.

I'm not sure why I even bother, but let me restate exactly what I posted in my quote.

Quote
replacing O'Conner with Alito is most certainly a shift towards the conservative side

O'Conner is more moderate than Alito.

Quote
Of course it was.  But rather than view the conservative decision as reflecting on how truly liberal those people actually were, you just want to "share the blame", whether it's true or not.  And you got called on it.

If you think that's Blackadar's point (or mine), fine.  It's not in reality, though...I misstated something, and he asked me to correct it.  I did.

Unlike certain people, I have no problems admitting when I'm wrong.

Quote
The "Liberal" Supreme Court supports conservatives, the "Liberal" media supports conservatives, the "Liberal" Congress is responsible for Bush's war in Iraq, etc.  See?  Conservatives can do no wrong, even when they do.

Uh.  When did I say any of this?
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: April 13, 2008, 12:43:09 AM »

Quote
Look at the stance on gun rights, for example: many if not most Dems are now supporting gun rights, and the Repubs are now starting to oppose them.  The forthcoming Supreme Court ruling may actually reveal how firmly against gun rights Republicans really are.

I've read this three times and it still doesn't compute.     This issue is rural vs urban, not Democrat vs Republican.   I used to be an NRA recruiter, and I signed up Independents, Democrats, Republicans, etc.

The Democrats erred and made it a party platform issue in the 90's and lost their behinds doing it.     They wisely decided to listen to rural Democrats and scrapped it from the platform.     Republicans have never embraced gun control. 

And btw -- it's widely thought that the 2nd Amendment will get a favorable ruling in June from the Supreme Court based on the verbal questioning the Justices were engaged in during arguments.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: April 13, 2008, 12:46:29 AM »

Quote from: DarkEL on April 08, 2008, 12:22:28 AM

Quote from: th'FOOL on April 08, 2008, 12:14:54 AM

Also, for the record, I have never publicly called for your bannination.  If you want to discuss this further we can certainly do it via PM, as this thread has already been sufficiently derailed.

Yes -- let's get the thread back to vague over-generalizations, blatant self-righteousness, narrow-mindedness and personal attacks and off of sketch comedy please!!!!

You are my Hero of the Day.   Congrats!
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: April 13, 2008, 12:48:22 AM »

Quote from: naednek on April 08, 2008, 02:22:51 AM

Lets all take a step back for a bit and cool off.

Don't make me lock Knightshade Dragon's thread biggrin  That will be a first and my eventual firing biggrin


It was also be hilarious and legendary.    Go down in history naed!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.194 seconds with 104 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.033s, 2q)