Liberal Media Greater threat than terrorism

[Diogenes]

My point is, it's in the eye of the beholder. For some reason you consider a skank to be a negative thing. Why are you promoting intolerance?

You're an idiot with an indefensible position.

I guess the little smiley face was just too subtle for such an astute observer as you? Let me spell it out. The smiley face means it's a joke, and you are attacking a straw man. But you do look daring up there on your hobby horse!

You might as well call Obama a nigger and say it isn't racist. Our language allows us derogatory ways of saying things.

From what I can discern, there isn't anything about Obama that isn't racist. He is a prime beneficiary of a series of affirmative action promotions of an unqualified fool to a positions above his competency level. Had he been white, everyone could have seen he was a fool, but because people are so in love with the idea of electing a "Black" President, just because he's black, they did not judge him by objective standards. Judging him by his color and not by his ideas is racism. Sure, it's beneficial (to him) racism, but it is racism none the less. (And his mother was a nasty skank who died from uterine cancer, no doubt caused by all of those viral infections from skankery.)

Main Entry: 1skank
Pronunciation: \ˈskaŋk\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1964
slang : a person and especially a woman of low or sleazy character

Derogatory term for a (usually younger) female, implying trashiness or tackiness, lower-class status, poor hygiene, flakiness, and a scrawny, pockmarked sort of ugliness. May also imply promiscuity, but not necessarily. Can apply to any race, but most commonly used to describe white trash.

Top definitions in both cases; I didn't have to dig.

No, but it does you good to look up the obvious. People like you might not know it's obvious until someone like you comes along and lets your intellectual brethren know. It IS interesting to note that none of your response disputes how closely these definitions resemble the precedent's mother, and other prominent liberal/socialist skanks in history. It is also telling that the only one of my points you addressed was the unserious one. I guess big boy arguments are too strenuous for you?

I do appreciate your attempt to reclaim the word "skank" as something positive, though. Very gallant and noble. It reminds me of the skit in the Vagina Monologues where they say that we need to reclaim the word "cunt". Very well Di, you are a skanky cunt, in the purely positive sense.

Your lack of comprehension is only exceeded by your desire to share it with others. You obviously have no conception of tongue in cheek, probably because yours spends most of it's time in someones ass. It appears I should use humor on people with the cognitive facilities to recognize it. Back over to you cuckboi.

[Diogenes]

ROFL!!!

I think we know who won that round. . .HEH!!!

I would like to see this from your perspective, but there's not enough room up your ass for both our heads.

[GIThruster]

Oh stop. You didn't think anyone was impressed when you argued "skank" is not a derogatory term? Were you writing for kids in elementary school?

She gave you a sound thrashing and you deserved it. Your posts are all designed to be provocative, and you provoked her all right.

Anyone noting there's no noble way to end this thread? Some things can't be saved. . .

[Diogenes]

Oh stop. You didn't think anyone was impressed when you argued "skank" is not a derogatory term? Were you writing for kids in elementary school?

She gave you a sound thrashing and you deserved it. Your posts are all designed to be provocative, and you provoked her all right.

Anyone noting there's no noble way to end this thread? Some things can't be saved. . .

You are incredibly dense. You still haven't figured out that my defense of the word "Skank" was a joke, and again the smiley face clue wasn't enough. You're the same silly ass that posted the message questioning the TSA's internet policy. Pardon me if i'm not impressed with your astuteness. Learn to read! Better yet, learn to comprehend!

[MirariNefas]

He/she is mad that I called him/her out on being a bigot, so he/she responds by upping the ante and being an even bigger bigot. It's true, I didn't really need to say anything. Di dug a hole, jumped in it, and loudly advertised his/her nature as a poor human being.

Wow, just look at that exchange. It went something like this:

Di : "I'm not really a cunt "

Me: "Yes, you are."

Di : "Hah! Look at the ! That meant I was joking you fool, of course I'm a cunt!"



Yes GIThruster, no noble way to end this. Di, take the last word. It won't make any difference anyway.

[Diogenes]

He/she is mad that I called him/her out on being a bigot, so he/she responds by upping the ante and being an even bigger bigot. It's true, I didn't really need to say anything. Di dug a hole, jumped in it, and loudly advertised his/her nature as a poor human being.

Wow, just look at that exchange. It went something like this:

Di : "I'm not really a cunt "

Me: "Yes, you are."

Di : "Hah! Look at the ! That meant I was joking you fool, of course I'm a cunt!"

You really have a thing for strawmen. I prefer actual opponents myself. It's more fun to fight against someone who can fight back. The good thing about strawmen though, is that you can always declare victory, and then pretend to be uninterested.

Yes GIThruster, no noble way to end this.

"The only winning move is not to play." Most people who don't wish to participate in a flame war don't start one.

Di, take the last word. It won't make any difference anyway.

No, it won't. Someone unable to understand what was said previously won't likely gain the talent any time soon. The comment from GIThruster shed a bit of light on why you decided to get so vehement. You were offended by the use of the term "skank". The main point, (googles employees honoring the birth of a particular communist skank showing how these people think and attempt to influence others) was completely lost on you. All you could hear was the word "Skank".

Just remember this. It's not what people call you, it's what you answer to.

[MirariNefas]

The good thing about strawmen though, is that you can always declare victory, and then pretend to be uninterested.

Most people who don't wish to participate in a flame war don't start one.

I'd have really been happy to let you get in that last jab, but you have to keep inviting me back in, don't you? I'm not "uninterested"; I won't even pretend it. But where can we go from here, rationally? This has simply become a test of endurance rather than logic. You've admitted that you're grossly intolerant to any lifestyle outside your own concepts of morality, and feel like randomly posting nude pictures and flinging out offensive speech. I made it clear that this is offensive, and you don't care. This isn't a straw man characterization, by the way. It is merely how I perceive you and this exchange - that is, it is what you have accomplished in communicating. Good job.

I'm at least interested enough to respond when you start a flame war (and if you read back through the posts, it will be clear that you're the one frothing at the mouth here, not me).

Okay, just for clarification's sake:

The comment from GIThruster shed a bit of light on why you decided to get so vehement. You were offended by the use of the term "skank". ...
Just remember this. It's not what people call you, it's what you answer to.

I'm male. By your logic, a "stud".

I'm not surprised you made this mistake. You probably think I'm a Democrat too, or even a communist. This is a limitation of how you think.

[GIThruster]

The good thing about strawmen though, is that you can always declare victory, and then pretend to be uninterested.

Most people who don't wish to participate in a flame war don't start one.

I'd have really been happy to let you get in that last jab, but you have to keep inviting me back in, don't you? I'm not "uninterested"; I won't even pretend it. But where can we go from here, rationally? This has simply become a test of endurance rather than logic. You've admitted that you're grossly intolerant to any lifestyle outside your own concepts of morality, and feel like randomly posting nude pictures and flinging out offensive speech. I made it clear that this is offensive, and you don't care. This isn't a straw man characterization, by the way. It is merely how I perceive you and this exchange - that is, it is what you have accomplished in communicating. Good job.

I'm at least interested enough to respond when you start a flame war (and if you read back through the posts, it will be clear that you're the one frothing at the mouth here, not me).

Okay, just for clarification's sake:

The comment from GIThruster shed a bit of light on why you decided to get so vehement. You were offended by the use of the term "skank". ...
Just remember this. It's not what people call you, it's what you answer to.

I'm male. By your logic, a "stud".

I'm not surprised you made this mistake. You probably think I'm a Democrat too, or even a communist. This is a limitation of how you think.

My apologies to Mirari for presuming he's a woman. Just seemed any woman would be most provoked by the tone of the thread, misogynist as it is.

Me, I'm a Zoroastrian, libertine, cross-dressing, gay, baby whale--endangered, misunderstood but coveted by Japanese chefs everywhere.

[Diogenes]

edit:

F*** it. I'll send you my response in private. As fun as this is, a deescalation is better.

[MSimon]

Di can be particularly thick when he wants to be. You got to give him (it is a him) credit for that.

Typical sentiment if not exact quote: "What does a Baptist/bootlegger coalition have to do with Drug Prohibition? Drug dealers don't sell booze."

It is impossible to make a person understand what he does not wish to understand. There was a famous quote to that effect. Anyone remember it?

[Diogenes]

Di can be particularly thick when he wants to be. You got to give him (it is a him) credit for that.

Typical sentiment if not exact quote: "What does a Baptist/bootlegger coalition have to do with Drug Prohibition? Drug dealers don't sell booze."

It is impossible to make a person understand what he does not wish to understand. There was a famous quote to that effect. Anyone remember it?

Long too.

This is not an issue of refusing to understand, it is an issue of not yet having been convinced. You would have me believe that society would be better off if the ingestion of plant toxins and synthesized mind altering chemicals were legal and accepted. This sounds a lot like saying that some computers work better with malware in them, and it would benefit the whole network if we didn't try to stop it.


To say I don't understand how this could help anything is an understatement. If I am dense on this, it appears to be a common affliction.

[MSimon]

You would have me believe that society would be better off if the ingestion of plant toxins and synthesized mind altering chemicals were legal and accepted.

Well no. What I'm saying is that a war on plants is the ultimate futility. Even if it was a good idea.

There are many bad things that government is powerless to stop.

Where you go wrong is in thinking government has enough power to do what you desire.

But I have to admit you do get some positive results out of this brand of futility. An enlarged criminal class. And government corruption.

When it comes to Drug Prohibition we are in a similar situation to the waning days of Soviet Communism. Most pay the War the proper lip service. Far fewer are the numbers who believe it can actually work. I eagerly await the next five year plan comrade. Once it succeeds all will be roses.

It is nice to see a "conservative" with such a strong embrace for socialism. You know. Encouraging government price supports for criminals. Prohibition does not prohibit. It only determines how distribution is done.

I'm an American. And I think the smuggler, John Hancock, is a fine exemplar of the American tradition. He had a sloop called Liberty. What a devilish fellow. To give a smuggling ship such a name.

[Diogenes]

You would have me believe that society would be better off if the ingestion of plant toxins and synthesized mind altering chemicals were legal and accepted.

Well no. What I'm saying is that a war on plants is the ultimate futility. Even if it was a good idea.

It's not a war on plants, but regardless, it may be futile the way it is being fought now. For that matter, one could say the "war on crime" was futile because we still have crime. In any case, I'm not certain it is futile with another approach, such as the one they are using on Cigarettes.

(Taxing and regulating them out of existence. Or is this going to be another case for a Baptist/Bootlegger (false analogy) coalition? Since the Government needs the revenue, at some point are they going to stop attacking and start promoting tobacco? )

There are many bad things that government is powerless to stop.

Where you go wrong is in thinking government has enough power to do what you desire.

On the lists of my desires regarding government, escalating the drug war isn't near the top. It simply isn't an issue I am terribly concerned about. It is like worrying about the paint job when the engine needs an overhaul.

But I have to admit you do get some positive results out of this brand of futility. An enlarged criminal class. And government corruption.

I think corruption is a constant companion of government with or without people trading in narcotics. Narcotics is simply just another commodity among others.

When it comes to Drug Prohibition we are in a similar situation to the waning days of Soviet Communism. Most pay the War the proper lip service. Far fewer are the numbers who believe it can actually work. I eagerly await the next five year plan comrade. Once it succeeds all will be roses.

It is peculiar to me how you regard a lack of tolerance for people using drugs as comparable to soviet communism. I simply cannot fathom it.
If there is a comparison, it is relative to the body count from each thing, but even then, communism is in a different class.

It is nice to see a "conservative" with such a strong embrace for socialism. You know. Encouraging government price supports for criminals. Prohibition does not prohibit. It only determines how distribution is done.

Law enforcement does not stop crime, it only reduces it.

I'm an American. And I think the smuggler, John Hancock, is a fine exemplar of the American tradition. He had a sloop called Liberty. What a devilish fellow. To give a smuggling ship such a name.

One would think that this line of reasoning would equate all smugglers to patriots, but I am inclined to think that not all smuggling is honorable. Rockets into Palestine for example. Women into forced prostitution. Heroin to addicts. Slaves. Illegals. etc.

Tell me, should we have a moratorium on the interdiction of all smuggling, or just that of narcotics? I'm inclined to think whatever arguments you proffer to show that Narcotic interdiction is futile, will likely work just as well for the examples mentioned above.

Now I will agree with you on this. There have been and are excesses in the drug war that are indeed violations of our rights. The seizure of money without proof comes to mind. Some sentences are too stiff. Some law enforcement verges on abuse. But the bottom line that drugs are bad for society, and the pursuit and use of same endangers innocents, I simply cannot balance against any positive attributes of drug usage.

I am of course referring to the hard drugs. Marijuana is arguably safer than alcohol, but crack, meth, heroine, pcp, lsd etc. kill people, and not just the ones that use them.

[MSimon]

It's not a war on plants,

Dude, the big three in the illegal drug market are:

Pot - a plant
Cocaine - a plant extract
Heroin - derived from plants

And what is the government spending money on? Plant eradication.

The CAMP program and similar across the nation - eradication of pot plants. Mostly zero value feral hemp. But the government pays good money for the show every fall.
The fumigation with herbicides of coca plants in South America.
The fumigation with herbicides of opium plants in Afghanistan.

Not a war on plants?

OK maybe the government doesn't want to destroy all the plants. Just enough to maintain the profits of the cartels.

Do you have any idea about how we put the illegal alcohol cartels out of business in the US? Do you have any idea why significant cigarette smuggling is beginning to appear in the US?

======

And I am going to tell you what I have observed when it comes to economic education. The leftys (mostly) who want legalization understand every nuance when it comes to supply and demand in the illegal drug market. I'm astounded at the cogency of some of the analysis I have read from the left on the subject. What is very funny is that they are unable to apply similar thinking to any other economic topic.

On the right side of the aisle I see the right being able to do excellent economic analysis of almost any economic situation EXCEPT illegal drugs.

Too funny for words.

It is as if people will not allow rational thought to interfere with their pet projects. Especially if they are spending other people's money.

Which brings me to a musical interlude:

What you gonna do when everyone is insane?

[mvanwink5]

Balance the government budgets, legalize drugs: courts, prisons, cops, military, put gangs, organized crime, terrorists, out of business. Afgan war efforts would evaporate. Drug issue would become a civil issue like alcohol and tobacco. While were at it, get rid of the FDA so drugs can become affordable. Progressives are the new "Big Brother." This issue is worth a good rant.