Campaign 2008

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Okay, so...

 

MARVIN IS A RETARD.

Not acceptable.

 

 

MARVIN IS A RETARD BECAUSE HE THINKS BOYCOTTING A BANK IS A TERRORIST ACT.

Acceptable?

 

Yeah, actually.

 

Shit, that was easier than I thought it would be.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

A couple of weeks ago I complained to another poster that he'd gone too far ---an official board moderator no less--- because he'd brought up problems I'd had in my marriage as proof the problem I had with certain female politicians was that she was a woman. I was told that this was perfectly acceptable.

 

Where did this happen? Legit question.

 

Surprised I didn't catch any shit when I said I specifically wasn't voting for McCain simply because he has a woman as a running mate.

[At Home 0]

Call that trolling all you want, he's correct.

 

I've seen no one bitching about numbnuts up there dogpiling whenever it seems fashionable without raising a point of his own.

 

Now we can all play politically nice (make a point when you call someone a fucking retard) or I can delete the whole god damn thread.

 

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that the board is mostly liberal and liberal hob-nobbing is going to take place, but Matt rarely puts anything worth talking forward in his responses. It's always just trolling everyone else's posts, hiding behind the curtain of being an "independent." Of course, he's rarely ever defended any of his positions, or hell, even put them forward; most of his posts are concentrated around blowing whistles at us and shouting LIBERAL BIAS from the soap box.

 

Now, name-calling doesn't do anyone any good. Agent's right, calling Marvin a retard without making a point is denigrating the thread. But, as numerous examples from this and many other threads will show, Marvin makes a lot of stupid points. It's like the rule of the facepalm, where something is so inane that it defies logical breakdown and explanation. Are we not allowed to call Marvin on his shit?

[At Home 0]

Surprised I didn't catch any shit when I said I specifically wasn't voting for McCain simply because he has a woman as a running mate.

 

I'm a misogynist, I sure as hell ain't going to care.

 

Here's the thing...and you don't have to "delete a thread" over it, I'm more than happy to put myself on the line for the whole stake...

 

Marvin doesn't show up when things get into...you know...politics...

 

Like the debates or health care or foreign policy or the economy or energy...

 

He shows up to defend Obama's ties to TERRORISTS.

 

Ghost, call it a day, man. Marvin has debated things like that.

[Nightwing 0]

Marvin Is NOT a Lunatic.

 

Marvin is a retard.

 

...

 

He finishes wathing Fox News and then tries to explain through the filter of retardation, what he has learned.

 

It wasn't true when he learned it. And it's down right hilarious when he repeats it.

 

As opposed to the other posters on the board, who finish watching Keith Olbermann and try to make sense of his retardation. The last five pages of this thread are HILARIOUS libera-babble. Let's just be honest here -- both Palin and Biden have no idea what they're talking about. Anyone who tries to state otherwise is nothing more than a biased party hack.

 

...

 

Why does Biden not know what he's talking about? The fact that Palin was incredibly evasive (To the point of outright saying "I'd like to actually talk about energy" on a completely unrelated topic), vague, and generally hesitant to put out anything substantive to actually analyze indicated that she wasn't knowledgeable, and it's to be expected from someone who has so little experience with politics on a national scale. You can't say the same about Biden: of all 4 candidates, Biden's performance was easily the most policy-stocked of them all. He answered quickly, kept to the point, and actually got into specifics multiple times.

 

I just want to hear why Biden "didn't know what he talked about", other than a vague way of trying to diminish an excellent debate performance.

[At Home 0]

Biased party hack.

[bob_barron 0]

Just because you disagree with Marvin (I know his real name is Matt, but everyone just calls him Marvin), doesn't make him a troll.

 

If you guys think he's a moron, ignore him. It's amazing how futile it is for some people to grasp that concept.

[At Home 0]

I'm calling panthermatt a troll, not Marvin.

[bob_barron 0]

Oh okay, my mistake. I get confused.

 

Let him post his opinions though, and if you think his posts are awful, ignore him

[panthermatt7 0]

Call that trolling all you want, he's correct.

 

I've seen no one bitching about numbnuts up there dogpiling whenever it seems fashionable without raising a point of his own.

 

Now we can all play politically nice (make a point when you call someone a fucking retard) or I can delete the whole god damn thread.

 

I don't think anyone is denying the fact that the board is mostly liberal and liberal hob-nobbing is going to take place, but Matt rarely puts anything worth talking forward in his responses. It's always just trolling everyone else's posts, hiding behind the curtain of being an "independent." Of course, he's rarely ever defended any of his positions, or hell, even put them forward; most of his posts are concentrated around blowing whistles at us and shouting LIBERAL BIAS from the soap box.

 

Now, name-calling doesn't do anyone any good. Agent's right, calling Marvin a retard without making a point is denigrating the thread. But, as numerous examples from this and many other threads will show, Marvin makes a lot of stupid points. It's like the rule of the facepalm, where something is so inane that it defies logical breakdown and explanation. Are we not allowed to call Marvin on his shit?

 

What positions of mine would you like me to defend? Sorry if I'm crossing the line to 'trolling,' I certainly don't intend to.

 

And I'm glad that people eventually understood my point on Marvin.

[At Home 0]

Any of them. I don't know where you stand on any issue, other than thinking that Obama is an "empty suit."

[SuperJerk 0]

The reason this board has a liberal bias is because most (not all) of the conservatives that used to post here got tired of letting their ideas compete in the marketplace of ideas and went off to start their own board.

 

As I said before, I want a variety of opinions, becuase I want ot see how well my views stand up to competition. I just wish the competition was better than certain people who shall remain nameless.

 

A couple of weeks ago I complained to another poster that he'd gone too far ---an official board moderator no less--- because he'd brought up problems I'd had in my marriage as proof the problem I had with certain female politicians was that she was a woman. I was told that this was perfectly acceptable.

 

Where did this happen? Legit question.

 

Surprised I didn't catch any shit when I said I specifically wasn't voting for McCain simply because he has a woman as a running mate.

 

As far as the argument between myself and the moderator goes, I'd rather just forget it ever happened. I just want some consistency...same rules for everybody.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I thought this place was more liberal because the conservatives got tired of seeing their ideas fail for the last 7 years.

[bob_barron 0]

This place is more liberal because all the conservatives went to the Pit after Mike's bullshit banning.

 

Surprised I didn't catch any shit when I said I specifically wasn't voting for McCain simply because he has a woman as a running mate.

 

Probably because it was such a stupid thing to say, that everyone ignored it.

[SuperJerk 0]

This place is more liberal because all the conservatives went to the Pit after Mike's bullshit banning.

 

Which, if you stop to think about it for more than 5 seconds, never made any sense.

[bob_barron 0]

They wanted to post at a place where they felt they could post whatever they wanted, without fear of banning like at TSM. Enter the Pit.

[SuperJerk 0]

One guy gets banned and suddenly everyone...or rather, mostly just people from his end of the political spectrum...begin to fear for their posting lives? Doesn't quite make sense.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

Letterman is gunning for Palin now, apparently...

 

[At Home 0]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008...co_talk_editors

 

New Yorker endorses Obama.

[Jingus 0]

One guy gets banned and suddenly everyone...or rather, mostly just people from his end of the political spectrum...begin to fear for their posting lives? Doesn't quite make sense.

It wasn't fear, and my originally founding the Pit had absolutely nothing to do with political ideaology of any kind. TSM, like most message boards, has always had problems with enforcing its rules consistently. Mike got banned not because he actually broke any of the rules, but just because he was a conservative asshole. Buncha people didn't take kindly to that, for various reasons. It wasn't just "oh, they PH3ARED our liberalism". I personally am not a conservative, so it always amuses me whenever the Pit is portrayed as some kind of conservative boys' treehouse which they formed in order to hide from the shining leftist light of righteousness. Hell, come on over sometime, poor Eric and Jobber are mighty overworked trying to represent their side all by themselves. But don't kid yourself: that board was started in defense of freedom of expression, not to shelter the poor abused dregs of the Republican party, crying into their coors lite while jerking off to photoshopped nudes of Ann Coulter.

 

 

So now can we get back to ejaculating our steaming hot pearly white misogyny all over Sarah Palin's glasses?

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008...co_talk_editors

 

New Yorker endorses Obama.

 

 

Oh man that's going to sway a ton of undecided voters! It was really thoughtful and civic-minded of them to waste a whole bunch of column space on a pointless, self-satisfied Obama endorsement instead of using it to print actual interesting commentary or journalism or whatever.

[At Home 0]

Shut the fuck up, Byron, it's a pretty good cumulative read. I know it's not going to change the election. Who are you trying to impress?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That's not the issue, Marvin. Quit BEING A FUCKING DUMBASS

You dont find it funny that she's using facts obtained from an article in the New York Times (same article I linked to) to attack Obama? 99% of the time its the other way around.

What's the deal with Republicans and the New York Times? This is like one of those grudge matches that goes back for decades. Are they pissed off about Watergate still, or what?

 

The most common complaint seems to be that they tend to reveal things that the state would have wanted kept secret, such as quiet wiretapping projects or locations of captive holding camps. While I can get the argument that these things only make life tougher for soldiers in the area who don't set the policies of the war they're fighting, that's not always the case. I agree that not all these "revelations" are worthy of the front page, but critics seem to want a media that will arbitrarily run and bury stories based on who they'll hurt if published. And yet they also accuse the media of doing just that right now and say it's biased because of it.

 

The government is probably a kindler, gentler place due to the media's attempts to be almost counter-productive against government's quest to do whatever they want. The kind of shit that gets whistleblown today on the front page of the Times is nothing compared to Watergate or Project MKULTRA or Pick A 70s Whistleblower Story Here.

[At Home 0]

Kind of the same thing as Democrats and Fox News.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Uh, no, Fox News is about controlling a political message through soundbytes and stupid chyron text under the talking heads. As I just pointed out, the NYT exposes date back decades and involve all kinds of shit we weren't supposed to know about, from exposing pregnant women to radiation to electro-shocking people or attempting to brainwash them in the name of research and destroying all the evidence.

 

I know that in the 50s and 60s we didn't have a lot of respect for human rights, but find me something today that shows comes at all close to that.

[At Home 0]

I'm not disputing that, but the Times, thanks to McCain's numerous references, has been turned into a euphemism for the, get ready for it, liberal media.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yeah, fuck it, I'm not even going to travel down this road any further, having read the rest of Marvin's posts.

 

 

IGNORE WHAT I HAVE SAID KTHX

[milliondollarchamp 0]

Obama has been putting on some commercials attacking McCains hidden tax hike. I believe Biden mentioned it as well in teh debates.

 

The premise is that under McCains disguised health care program McCain will give people a 5k tax credit. To pay for this, he will start taxing the money those that have health insurance through their company pay into that insurance premiums. This is actually very big because unlike income taxes that can be finagled with loopholes, this money is taken directly out of the paychecks of WORKING americans. The ad further says that the 5k tax incentive doesnt even go to the people it goes to the insurance companies,

 

So my question for those McCain supporters (or even Obama supporters who may know more about it) is, is there any accuracy to any of this. Is McCain using his health care plan as a guise to actually raise taxes on the working class of America while giving the benefits of the incentives to the corporations.

[Nightwing 0]

Obama has been putting on some commercials attacking McCains hidden tax hike. I believe Biden mentioned it as well in teh debates.

 

The premise is that under McCains disguised health care program McCain will give people a 5k tax credit. To pay for this, he will start taxing the money those that have health insurance through their company pay into that insurance premiums. This is actually very big because unlike income taxes that can be finagled with loopholes, this money is taken directly out of the paychecks of WORKING americans. The ad further says that the 5k tax incentive doesnt even go to the people it goes to the insurance companies,

 

So my question for those McCain supporters (or even Obama supporters who may know more about it) is, is there any accuracy to any of this. Is McCain using his health care plan as a guise to actually raise taxes on the working class of America while giving the benefits of the incentives to the corporations.

 

I'm not sure about whether or not it's a "hidden tax", but it will apparently cost a lot of money.

 

Reading that entire article, it only really confirms to me that Palin had no fucking clue what she was talking about. Biden's misgivings are generally related to actual events and might have a bit of factual basis, even if it is wrong. But Palin? Christ, every time she's wrong, they don't seem to have a clue where she is getting her facts from.

[BUTT 0]

OBAMA YOUTH