I wish I was there so I can suck Steven in the fucking face. He looks like a fucking faggot who likes to take it in the ass. Great job Steven, you are a man now...yelling at an old women!!
I will no go ahead and list more examples of you being wrong, and never admitting it hippie. You said I made up the term "internet speak" as I went a long. You were proven wrong on that one as well. You said that the democrat party stopped being racist more than 30 years ago. I showed you some of the racist things democrats have said in the past 10 years, thus proving you wrong once again. You said the bible said it was a "sin" to get divorced. I gave you scriptural evidence proving otherwise.
Wow xSamWaynex, you mad bro. I can't tell if you Republican or Democrat? Anyway Crowder is that video legit sir; did you edge that women on. You have some balls dude :)
Not mad at all, although I do know the reference, and to be quite honest I never found that one that funny, but hey to each his own. Anyway I'm a conservative republican, and proud of it. I can't stand liberal democrats and think they all need to take a time out and think about what they've done..............See what I did there because liberal democrats are childish........................nevermind...........................maybe I am mad bro who knows?
Well said Sam, we pretty much agree. The left always tries to hold today's standards to the past like its plausible. My issue with people like Hip is that they cling so tightly to the law when it comes to separation of church and state, but become total hypocrites when the law goes against them like in the case of gay marriage...
Personally I don't think anyone who does any kind of legitimate research into the current administration could support them, unless they hate the US.
I completely agree with you. Obama has almost quadrupled the nations debt. He printed 10 trillion dollars, and at the time, and even now, America doesn't have the funds to back this up. The American dollar is the world currency right now for all intents and purposes, and when the administration did this it just furthered the economies downfall. America has been downgraded to aa+, after 100 years of being triple a standard.
Anyway, people like Hip just don't understand how the world truly works. They want everything given to them in their own timing, and in their own way. You ask any liberal democrat about abortion, and no matter how much info you give them, they say "it's legal and that's all that matters" but those same people pitch a fit about gay marriage. They aren't happy unless they get everything they want. This being Christmas and all, it's appropriate to call them out on their childishness.
Typical Tea Baggers/KKK causing problems at peaceful rallies ;) I can not believe someone would follow a person who has connections with Fox News, knowing that about 70% of what comes out of his mouth are lie and the other is pure bull shit.
This wasn't at one of their rallies. The occupiers waltzed into the building where some republicans were having a meeting and decided to basically throw a temper tantrum like they always do. But hey just like everyone else who supports the occupy movement you spoke without knowing all the facts.
The southern state leaders were adamant about the 10th amendment, which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or the people." When the federal government tried taking too much power away from the states, the southern states decided to enact their right of secession. The north at this time was all about the federal government, and the expansion of governmental power, not the south.
Continued from my last point, by putting up strict laws to govern the south almost like a separate section of the country...or its own country, that is expanding more and more laws. Now granted it is in a state like format, but we all know the south itself tried to succeed because they couldn't tolerate the rules set down by the decisions in the capital. They even set rules on the north for making sure escaped slaves were returned back south.
This is true they didn't like what was going on with the federal government, and instead opted for a more state rule of government with less federal involvement. Therefore smaller state based government, instead of larger federal based government. This is what the founding fathers also wanted. The secession of the south was caused by many things, one of which was states rights.
Now about the slaves, the second confiscation act of 1862 stated that any slave caught behind union lines was to be deported either back to africa or to places in the tropics. These were supposed to be free people, but they were not being treated like free people. African Americans fought on both sides during the civil war. In the south the ones that fought were paid, and received lodging just like the white soldiers. In the north many were regarded as "volunteers" and were treated
quite badly. And can be seen in many of their journals. This is yet another reason why I can't stand it when people single out the south as this backward racist bunch of cousin lovin' hicks. At the time the standards were indeed different, and if you were to look at it from our standards now EVERYONE was racist back then. But the media singles out the south. It's seriously wrong, and it needs to stop.
"quite badly. And can be seen in many of their journals"
Without quotes, and a few days lag from holidays, I have no idea what you are referring to. I know not using quotes are usually your backdoor when losing, but you see how much more accurate it is here?
You quote me, and then say you have no idea where it comes from, or why I used it. Then why quote me? What point were you trying to make? When I said that they were treated badly I was referring to the african americans who fought in the north during the civil war. Their journals say that they had to do the laundry, and were treated just like they were when they were slaves. William Mack Lee on the other hand also wrote a journal telling of how he was treated like a MAN in the south.
He was paid for his services, and was never belittled by anyone he worked for. His education was paid for by Robert E. Lee, who happened to be the man who set him free before the civil war. However none of this matters to you because you weren't around back then remember?
"and if you were to look at it from our standards now EVERYONE was racist back then"
To an extent I agree with that (outside a few exceptions in each time period) but...there came a time and place when society was more enlightened. Even if you understand a 1920s man for his "niggers in their place" mentality it was less acceptable in 1960, even less in 1970, and not tollerated in 1980.
The GOP/hate gays of today will be remembered the same as the bigots of yesteryear
I agree with you on this one. The republicans who hate gays will be remembered as bigots, just like the democrats who hated african americans are remembered as bigots.
Does he obey all laws. What one of the 10 commandments does he want to break
and
... accuses me of being a coward and ugly, but declines a beauty contest... that's just as good as admitting hes uglier.
God he must rage flail every time he comes back to this thread, despite losing he still comes back too; quite amazing actually... I still say hes paid to do it.
" What one of the 10 commandments does he want to break"
Never said that. But...i really dont think it's a goddam deal to break your sabbath. most "christ"ians never get to rest with the money fleecing church and carting kids to that. why not let them rest on the day of rest?
1. you never met me & know nothign about me. You have "bore false witness". you broke your magical god's commandment...sinned! I am not "paid" to write anything.
2. Your hero turd Stephen Crowder IS PAID to make his propaganda videos and you seem ready to lick his ass over it.
You seem to think just because someone is liberal and smarter than you, they must be "paid". Sorry kid, but that covers thousands if not millions out there!
-blinks.-... wouldn't you being smarter than me require you to have actually being me in intelligence? Anyway you can say "magical god" all you want; but people on your side believe in him too sooooo don't forget you're insulting them too... also the majority of the American people... and Obama... Wow, you kinda alienate yourself from your own people it seems.
"Anyway you can say "magical god" all you want; but people on your side believe in him too sooooo don't forget you're insulting them too"
I have no problem insulting them as well...but the difference here is the left does cow tow and ass kiss the magical Jesus cult. I mean come on, people like McCain are only "christ"ian when they wants votes. You usually can't run on a Republican ticket without looking like you believe in magical jesus.
Ok lets be fair then, you don't believe in god fine... So fairness can you give your opinion on what you do believe in? I'm up for a calm peaceful debate if you are, lets compare out two points of views and see what happens.
Why are you trying to make this venomous again? Insults only weaken your debate by making you look spiteful and uncaring of evidence. But i'll address your points now.
1. There is proof that the government pays bloggers to go on youtube and other sites using shadow names and what not, the content they post about match some of your arguments.
2. Whether someone is paid or not, if they are reporting facts and back up their points; I have no issue with them.
Never said decorations have legal standings, however they aren't decorations they are religious symbols, remember when I told you to learn the difference? For the last time, FOUNDED ON DOES NOT EQUATE TO BEING A LAW. Remember my baseball and cricket analogy? Learn to pay attention, instead of being a pretentious ass. You are starting to prove that liberals really are all about themselves.
"Never said decorations have legal standings, however they aren't decorations they are religious symbols"
They are both. You also "forgot" to answer my point about pagans and even Muhamed on the Supreme Court building. You know.. the points that defeated yours?
"Remember my baseball and cricket analogy"
Yes...non point asshatery.
"Learn to pay attention" typical conservative trick- dont use quotes. This lets you be vague and hide from the fact i proved you wrong
No they aren't both. A decoration is like a painting, or nick-nacks. Religious symbols on the other hand are just that. You don't see the difference because you have no respect for religion. And no I didn't forget to answer anything, I simply pointed out that you were horribly mistaken. Remember when I asked you about why there the 10 commandments in courtrooms? There aren't any laws based on other religions, or other religious observances, but there are laws based on Judeo-Christian.
"Remember when I asked you about why there the 10 commandments in courtrooms? There aren't any laws based on other religions, or other religious observances, but there are laws based on Judeo-Christian."
Again "based on" is NOT LAW and have no bearing on if gay marriage should be legal or not.
AND the Jews say YOU got the Messiah wrong. The 10 Commandments originate in their religion.even if you want this "Christian nation" fantasy...you should say "Jewish nation"
The Jewish people that I know don't tell me anything about the messiah, as they know I am an agnostic. Kind of weird how you liberals love to jump to conclusions about people, and when they tell you you're wrong you just dismiss what they say and instead keep going on and on about it. Also why are you pointing out my argument to me? I told you "based on" is NOT LAW 12 times already. Why try to make that argument yours now?
I have already given you a direct answer multiple times, but here goes again. Something can be based on something without that being a law. Remember my baseball and cricket analogy that you hated so much because it proved you wrong so badly? Please try and keep up with the conversation hippie.
You didn't ridicule anything, not until now anyway. Also you are proving my point for me. I said that baseball was loosely based on cricket, key word there is LOOSELY. I also said that based on doesn't equate with LAW, which you once again are trying to argue. You were wrong, get over it already, and stop going back to that useless argument. For the last time BASED ON doesn't equal LAW.
"I said that baseball was loosely based on cricket, key word there is LOOSELY. I also said that based on doesn't equate with LAW,"
Which mean like Cricket has NOTHING to do with how baseball is governed, magical religion some guys in the 1700s believed has nothing to do in making laws today.
Ergo- you have no point in this stupid comparison.
"I also said that based on doesn't equate with LAW"
My point obviously didn't "fail" too badly as you started to use that same argument yourself. Now for the last time, I will not say this again I promise, "BASED ON DOES NOT EQUATE WITH LAW" That means law of any kind. Governing would be included in this. You know this, but try to slip it by me anyway in hops that your argument will somehow start to hold water. Our country was influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs and can be seen through the documents at the beginnings of our country.
For the last time, YOU started the whole discussion of gay marriage AFTER we had already started talking about the US being influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs. So, why try to bring that up in an argument now. Your argument is moot, has been moot, and will continue to be moot. No two ways around it.
You, and anyone else can clearly see this. Which is why I honestly think that you are arguing just for arguments sake. You saw that you were wrong several comments ago but you are too prideful, and too invested in this to admit that you are wrong. This is common among liberal democrats. Childishness is also common among liberal democrats. Hence you using the term "fail" which is a childish term that is used in "internet speak" it's akin to "pwn." Hopefully you'll grow up someday.
Actually no I didn't make it up as I went along. You can look up "internet speak" if you want. There are several words and phrases that have been used so many times they have been categorized as "internet speak" or "lingo." And yes you have been wrong several times. I have pointed it out each time, and you have just dismissed it. That is childish. Quite frankly I am tired of arguing with someone who is a childish hippie. That's not meant as an insult, but a frank assessment of you.
"That is childish. Quite frankly I am tired of arguing with someone who is a childish hippie"
You insisting I am a "hippie" is not very mature, nor is even remotely honest. But hey...Fox news style- just repeat it over and over! Facts be damned yuck yuck yuck!
You were being, and continue to be childish. You won't admit when you are wrong, that is CHILDISH. I have admitted when I was wrong, but you just dismiss what I have to say when I'm right. Just like you did when I told you about internet speak. Can you please post when Fox news was wrong? Not Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Beck, but the actual news anchors.
"Can you please post when Fox news was wrong? Not Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Beck, but the actual news anchors."
You're saying prove Fox lie, except for 3 who make up a major portion of it's viewership. If you say editorials can be up to opinon, I agree...but I see Sean Hannity flat out lie about the Tea Bagger rally showing the wrong footage...that's dishonest.
O'Reliey was wrong about the massacre at Malmédy. Fox News CHANGE THE TRANSCRIPT on their web page
Why call them tea baggers? Honestly that is childish. No.....that's Garafaloish which is much much worse. I asked you to prove when fox lied not counting Hannity O'Reilly, or Beck because the News channel itself just reports the news. But liberal democrats continuously call out "Fox News" as this biased right wing organization. MSNBC,NBC, ABC, CBS are all predominantly liberal and have shown themselves biased as well. But I guess their bias is ok because it helps out liberal democrats
Because it's funny and balls in the mouth sums it up. Plus...CONSERVATIVES used it! Google "tea bagging for Jesus sign".
"Honestly that is childish"
You're just mad because your guys picked a stupid name that's a sex act. If it was a liberal, conservatives would use it faster than you could say "algore" especially if Rush said it.
You claimed Fox News was a right wing network, and was full of liars. Obviously YOU think they are biased. Me on the other hand I don't think the news anchors are biased. And to be completely honest with you O'Reilly, from what I've seen anyway, doesn't seem that biased. He has brought up a lot of issues against conservatives as well on his show. But oh well I guess that doesn't matter right? Also why can you say things like "you guys think" and it's ok but if I do it it's wrong?
Don't tell me what I think. I'm a very opinionated person. If I want you to know what I think I will say it plainly and quite bluntly. I'm not saying I think they are liberal because of the people that work there. I am saying I think they are liberal because of their actions. They won't run stories about Obama that paint him in a negative light. Their political correspondents support Obama for the most part, and anyone who doesn't is often booed and mocked.
Hell when Keith Olberman still had his show he wouldn't have anyone on that didn't kiss his ass, and the democrat party's ass. He wouldn't have anyone directly on his show that disagreed with him, and very rarely did he have anyone via satelite that disagreed with him. MSNBC is owned by NBC, so if you agree that MSNBC is liberal biased why not NBC?
Why ask the first question as if it never happened, and then admit to not watching "Olberman" and then say that it has nothing to do with what we discussed? It has everything to do with what we discussed. We were discussing talk show hosts who have a tendency to go over the top. YOU called out the people from Fox, I called out the people from MSNBC. I also never said Fox wasn't responsible when their tv show hosts lied. I simply said that MSNBC should be as well.
Never said that MSNBC was "worse" I simply showed that you are only pointing out FOX news and being biased, and in doing so showing you to be a hypocrite once again. Also you never showed were FOX news anchors "lied" you cited a "feel good" story that was meant to entertain the viewers. You seem to be upset because they said "Jesus" on their show. You are an atheist. If you don't like the program don't watch it. But don't call them liars for airing a "feel good" story. That's childish
I didn't use quotes because they weren't necessary. You have continuously mocked the Christian faith time and again. Remember when you called their teachings "church ramblings"? How's that for a quote? It clearly shows that you don't really care for their teachings, and your attitude towards Christians in calling them bigots shows that you have contempt for them as well. It was a "feel good" story not a lie. YOU claimed that fox news anchors LIED. But you never proved it.
"You have continuously mocked the Christian faith time and again"
Their beliefs do that well enough on their own. Come on...talking snake, levitation, super strength? You make fun of liberal ideas, and NOTHING on the left is as outlandish as these magical stories.
"Remember when you called their teachings "church ramblings"
So what? You've called things far worse than that.
Whether you believe their faith to mock itself or not is not even in the realm of what I was talking about. YOU have personally mocked their religion and shown your hatred toward it on several occasions. Which I have shown instances of several times now. As far as me calling things far worse can you please name an instance in which I mocked your faith, or anyone else for that matter, in anyway? I haven't. So once again this is a moot point on your part.
"Whether you believe their faith to mock itself or not is not even in the realm of what I was talking about. YOU have personally mocked their religion and shown your hatred toward it on several occasions."
So let me see if I follow your conservative logic:
1. "christ"ians who hate gays/ want to pass laws against them= not bigots because of their "faith" in invisible beings with magical powers... right?
1. Wrong. This is not my opinion at all. My opinion has been clearly stated. YOU think they are bigots based on ONE aspect of their faith. When confronted with ANYTHING that shows them to not be bigots you dismiss it.
2. Anyone who makes fun of christians=bigot? How the hell can you get that out of ANYTHING I have said? I have given clear and concise reasons as to why you are a bigot. It's not because you "make fun" of them it's because of your overall hatred and contempt for them.
cont-It's because you take hearsay as fact to form your opinion of them. You have called their teachings "church ramblings" and misquoted scriptures, and taken people OPINIONS as FACT. Remember when you said it was wrong to drink, or get a divorce? You said those things based on the OPINIONS of others instead of looking it up for yourself in the bible. IF anyone else would've done the same things to a different group as you have to christians YOU would call them bigots.
No you didn't do anything of the sort. You simply chose to accept a "feel good" story as a lie. You only referenced that ONE story in order to call them "liars." To say you did otherwise would be a clear lie on your part. Now for the last time I have already admitted that their shows lie SEVERAL times now. If you have trouble reading get someone around you to help okay? After I said they lied, I asked why was it wrong for them to do so but not it wasn't wrong for Olbermann or Mathews.
"No you didn't do anything of the sort. You simply chose to accept a "feel good" story as a lie"
No stupid. I quoted SEVERAL instances. You even AGREED with me about Megan Kelly's lie that pepper spray is " a food product". YOU COMMENTED ON THAT POST, stupid.
Other Fox lies:
- Bill Hemmer accused Kevin Jennings knew of a "statutory rape" case involving a 15-year-old student but "never reported it." Girl was legal. Conservative lie
Once again you didn't quote several instances. You quoted ONE instance. Every other instance that you are now mentioning is the first I am hearing of it. Maybe you are confusing arguments that you are having on YT. I don't know. But it's the first I'm seeing of them. In any case it wasn't just Fox News who reported on the "statutory rape case Washington Times did as well, and so did a lot of other papers all across the country. It wasn't a lie it was a misinterpretation of facts.
There is a difference. The difference being, a lie is something that is known outright at the time and still told. In this instance all evidence that they had about the case supported the "statutory rape" that they reported on. However instead of doing some research about it yourself you simply went on and on about Fox News reporting it, without ever looking in to see if any other sources reported on it. This again shows your bias.
- Keith Olbermann exposed Bill O'Reley for being factually wrong about the Malmedy massacre. Bill never admitt to wrong. You will give him a pass for being editorial but...
Fox News edited the TRANSCRIPTS online. They conservative LIED about what Bill even said.
- this year Dana Perino/Andrea Tantaros lied about the vote tally for the Patriot Act Renewal
- "violent Wisconsin Proteststs" showing video clips NOT in WI
Not given O'Reilly a pass at all if he was wrong then he was wrong. But what about Olbermann on the occupiers? He said that the rapes that were being reported weren't committed by actual occupiers. Well he damn sure lied about that, but that doesn't matter right? I mean hey it only matters when Fox News contributors are the ones messing up and lying right?
Oh and here is a link showing how Olbermann was proven wrong about the occupier rapes. bigjournalism(.)com/dloesch/2012/02/16/occupy-womens-pants-debunking-keith-olbermanns-pathetic-defense-of-rape/
- - repeatedly stated that then-Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan had barred or banned military recruiters from Harvard Law School's campus when she was dean
- lied when they said stolen emails prove climate change false
- lied when they said "self-executing rule" to finalize health care reform in the House, Democrats would pass HC reform "without actually voting for it."
Got more, but thats enough to prove you conservative wrong yet again
1. Learn the difference between a "feel good" story and a lie. Remember CNN,MSNBC,ABC,NBC,and CBS all have morning shows that do "feel good" stories all the time. So by only addressing Fox News you show your bias, and therefore discredit yourself from being taken seriously.
2.The first time I addressed the issues was the first time I saw them. Maybe you are mixing arguments or maybe it was marked as spam and I didn't see it.
3. Over using the word stupid doesn't make you smart.
When it comes to proving someone wrong I have proven you wrong on more than one occasion and you have just dismissed everything I have said. Shall I go ahead and list all the times I have proven you wrong again, or were all the other lists enough? The difference here is I admit when I'm wrong, like I did with the statues, which by the way is the ONLY time you have proven me "wrong." You on the other hand will not admit when you are wrong no matter how much evidence is provided.
If you cannot show an instance in which fox news anchors actually LIED, then you must admit that you were wrong. The anchors themselves just report the news. They do current events just like every other news show, which is the majority of their programming. You have a bias against conservatives, and feel that fox news is a conservative channel. Therefore you are allowing your bias to get in the way of the truth. Just admit you were wrong in saying fox news anchors LIED.
I never went silent. The only post you made showing that they "lied" was when you quoted an obvious "feel good" story. I have asked you several times now to show where they clearly lied, and you haven't been able to. Why should I have to continue to answer this ONE accusation as if you had multiple accusations? This isn't the only time you have done this. You said that you have proven me wrong MULTIPLE times, and only provided ONE instance.
Oh...and since you want to nitpic talk show hosts...O'Reiley and his "cut the mic" chicken shit. O'Reiley screaming at guests (Jeremy Glick, Geraldo Rivera) Gleen Beck and his "anti christ expert". Sean Hannity caught with fake footage on tea party rally. Fox and Friends interviewing a kid who claimed he saw Jesus in heaven. I'll say it again- A KID.
Yeah that's some great "news" station. and dont wash it by "thats not hte reporting" cause Fox aired this shit
Fox and Friends is a morning show much like Good Morning America, and Good Morning America has "feel good" stories on all the time which is exactly what the kid who saw Jesus story was. You have to cater to your viewers, and a lot of Fox viewers are christians, or at least believe in god, which is why they ran the story. This also isn't the NEWS ANCHORS. The news would be the ANCHORS who report the actual news coverage like CNN does.
"Fox and Friends is a morning show much like Good Morning America, and Good Morning America has "feel good" stories on all the time which is exactly what the kid who saw Jesus story was"
??? When has Good Morning America ever shown anything like a kid who saw jesus as "news"?
"isn't the NEWS ANCHORS"
you keep using that as an excuse liek you did for Beck...but Fox need to take responsibility for content.
What about during Christmas when they ask everyone if SANTA stopped by there house? Or when they have a big Easter egg hunt. These aren't meant to be taken LITERALLY once again they are "feel good" stories that cater to the viewers. I also never excused anything Beck did, I simply asked why is it wrong for Beck to do something but it's ok for Olbermann, or Mathews to do similar things? If they can "lie", and get away with it, then so can Beck. Get my point yet?
"What about during Christmas when they ask everyone if SANTA stopped by there house? Or when they have a big Easter egg hunt. These aren't meant to be taken LITERALLY once again they are "feel good"
Given the way you are arguing from a position of ignorance, I have to ask...did you even SEE the Fox and Friends piece I am referring to? Or the other times Fox brings up magical Jesus?
"I also never excused anything Beck did, I simply asked why is it wrong for Beck to do something but it's ok for Olbermann, or Mathews to do similar things?"
You're making excuses with a "they did worse" thing. Why can't you just answer about Beck?
But for your flimsy excuse- when have Mathews or Olbermann ever compared a group of people to the "anti christ" aka invisible magical demonic being/ supreme evil?
@hipstermi Oh please, Olbermann and Matthews regularly compared Bush to Hitler. But, if you put Obama with a Hitler mustache suddenly you are bigot and a racist. The double-standards of the liberal media comical. Maybe it's because just like you, when Obama speaks, you just get a tingle in your leg hahaha. Bunch of idiots.
"Oh please, Olbermann and Matthews regularly compared Bush to Hitler."
By not using quotes, your "reply" might come off as valid, but it's not. I very clearly asked when did either of these guy ever use anything as comparable to the ANTI CHRIST or other DEMONIC beings.
Can you cite the actual Olbermann/Mathews : Bush/Nazi comparison you had an issue with?
@hipstermi Well, I would like to see you Glenn Beck "Demonic" charge. The full quote would be nice to see it in context. December 7th, 2010, Olbermann: "I will confess I won’t fight if anyone wants to draw a comparison between what [Obama and Democrats have] done with our domestic policies of our day to what Neville Chamberlain did with the domestic policies of his." Essentially comparing Democrats compromise on tax cuts to appeasement of Hitler aka the Repubs and Bush. There ya go
"Well, I would like to see you Glenn Beck "Demonic" charge"
watch?v=nNzel6tPrFk&feature=related devoted to Wis. & "anti Christ Expert" Joel Richardson who wrote "What Obama and the Antichrist have in Common" he calls the man an "expert" despite that crack pot accusation.
1:00 he compares WI unions to Muslims and "New World Order" and part of the 12 Iman to bring an "anti christ" and his "end of time" claim
@hipstermi Both sides use the invective to describe one another, it's nothing incredible. Also, as an atheist yourself, I don't know how calling someone "demonic" would be deemed as offensive to you? I mean, it's not like you believe in that shit do you? That's what I thought.
I asked you to cite where Olbermann compared BUSH to the Nazis like you claimed...you failed to do this and instead cited something about Obama.
So your lack of answer, I should take it as a failure on your part? Meaning...you couldn't find one?
I also very clearly asked when did either of these guy ever use anything as comparable to the ANTI CHRIST or other DEMONIC beings. You have failed to answer this. Instead you answered a question...with a question.
Also...you commented to me about Olbermann comparing Bush to Hitler. Let's look at the actual quote you didn't cite I asked for an answer:
"when have Mathews or Olbermann ever compared a group of people to the "anti christ" aka invisible magical demonic being/ supreme evil?"
So I ask again...when have Olbermann and Mathews ever did a supreme evil/ demonic being compare? Hitler is not Satan. I asked for "Thing A" and you unable to give it, gave "Thing B" nice try
No I'm not making any excuses what so ever. I already said that Beck was wrong several comments ago. I said that he has a tendency to go overboard with his claims. I never excused anything he did. As far as Mathews and Olbermann go, they have never compared a group to the "anti-christ" that I can remember. However they did go along with the whole "tea-baggers" saying, and even called the group a bunch of racists. This was particularly true of Keith Olbermann.
"As far as Mathews and Olbermann go, they have never compared a group to the "anti-christ" that I can remember. However they did go along with the whole "tea-baggers" saying, and even called the group a bunch of racists. "
I asked specifically for the anti-christ/ magical beings. Your post above shows I proved you conservative wrong, and instead of being mature and admitting it, you have to say "however...this other thing is just as bad"
Obviously you think the whole "conservative" thing is funny and that's why you continue to use it. You make yourself seem like a real douche by using it but oh well whatever makes you feel better about yourself, because you OBVIOUSLY need it. I never said what they said was "just as bad" I simply said what they had done was also wrong, not "just as" so your point is entirely moot.
Didn't shed a tear, but if it makes you feel better to think of a grown man crying then by all means I'll take the hit on this one. "Which is like saying the same thing.Give us a nice big conservative "duuUUUhhhhHHHH" No need to hippie, as what I said wasn't the same thing at all. You claimed that I said it was "just as bad" when I clearly didn't. I simply asked you to take responsibility and say that what Olbermann and Mathews had said was wrong as well.
@xSamWaynex Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
As far as asking my conservative friends to pray to "magical Jesus" why would I do that when I am an agnostic? Obviously you are having trouble differentiating between conversations here on YT. I'm not the Christian, I simply took up for them because of your bigoted opinion, and hypocritical nature.
"MSNBC,NBC, ABC, CBS are all predominantly liberal and have shown themselves biased as well. But I guess their bias is ok because it helps out liberal democrats"
You parroting the "liberal media" conspiracy theory doesnt make it true. I know your script:
1. say guys who work there are Democrat. This doesnt prove 'biase"
2. you will pick a few instances and claim that's a bias
Batshit conspiracy theory and fear is how you guys usually operate. Doesnt stack up to facts.
Really I'm a batshit conspiracy theorist? Wow, that came out of left field...........hahahaha. When you can't prove someone wrong, make everyone think they are insane as to discredit them. All the stations I listed are all predominantly liberal, and have shown themselves to be on NUMEROUS occasions. Sadly, you know this but don't want to admit it, so instead you say I'm "batshit crazy." Either the instances exist or they don't. If they do exist I'm not batshit crazy.
For one a lot of the time I don't respond to something it isn't because you stumped me, or because I don't have a rebuttal. A lot of the times your comments are marked as spam and are easily overlooked. So I go back and look through the "spam" last and then answer, I sometimes miss a few here and there. In any case, my rule wasn't stupid. I asked you to name when fox news lied excluding those three because while they do air on "Fox News" they aren't anchors they are tv show hosts/
Yes they could fire them just like Chris Matthews could be fired when he gets caught in a lie, or Keith Olberman could've been fired YEARS ago for all the lying he did,(thankfully he was let go). However they kept them both because of ratings and money.....well excluding Olberman now, but you get the point.
Well, of course. We both know that they have all been caught in lies before. They do this to boost ratings. However, they don't lie all the time, and are still labeled as a bunch of "conspiracy theorists" especially Beck.
"However, they don't lie all the time, and are still labeled as a bunch of "conspiracy theorists" especially Beck."
If you or I was on TV and said 1o0,000 intelligent things...if one of us brought up "9/11 Truther" bs or "UFO coverups" just ONCE.... we would rightfully be called "conspiracy theorist' ....yes or no?
Remember the "Civilian National Security Force"? or his "Anti Christ Expert" talking about Wisconsin?
When did Hannity, Beck or O'Reilly ever bring up 9/11 truther or ufo bs. ALL of them are in fact AGAINST those things. Have you even watched their shows?
Actually it's not mind boggling since that is what you accused them of. Repeatedly calling me stupid isn't exactly going to prove that I am stupid. However if it is a nickname, I honestly didn't know you cared enough to give me one. It's about time though, especially since I've been calling you hippie for almost a month now.
"lly it's not mind boggling since that is what you accused them of."
No stupid. I never accused them of that. Challenge- find me a quote where I said anything remotely like this.
instead of arguing like a child about it...you could just find me a quote. but you wont since you know it will prove you wrong again like i have on multiple occasions (pagan statues anyone)
"If you or I was on TV and said 1o0,000 intelligent things...if one of us brought up "9/11 Truther" bs or "UFO coverups" just ONCE.... we would rightfully be called "conspiracy theorist' ....yes or no?"
This is what YOU said. You brought up 9/11 truther bs immediately after discussing Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity. Read what you wrote, and then tell me how I was wrong. Anyone who read that would say the same thing I said that you accused them of being 9/11 truthers.
No STUPID it is called you LIED. You claimed that Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly were 9/11 truthers. YOU said that if you or I brought it up we would be called conspiracy theorists. You were implying in a very obvious way mind that they were conspiracy theorists themselves, and 9/11 truthers. You took special exception to Beck when you were talking about this. No need to "conservative dumb it down" for me. By the way, you sound like a douche by doing the "conservative" thing.
How many times are you going to use the peewee Herman defense? I have clearly stated several times now that YOU are the ONLY one lying and being stupid during this entire conversation. You equating it to the childish "I know you are but what am I" shows your need for attention and lack of comprehension skills as well. In order for it to be the saying you provided I would have to admit that I myself am a liar and stupid. SINCE I AM NOT WHY THE HELL WOULD I CALL MYSELF A LIAR OR STUPID?
"How many times are you going to use the peewee Herman defense"
That phrase predates Pee Wee by several decades, stupid. if you don't like it, you need to stop actling like such a child with your "I know you are but what am I" tactics. All you do is repeat what I say about you or conservatives (like bigots) & say about me.
"YOU are the ONLY one lying and being stupid during this entire conversation"
LOL- you just did another "I know you are but what am I" stupid.
I called it the peewee herman defense because it is widely attributed to peewee herman, and it is just shorter than using the actual phrase okay? As far as me just reflecting the comments back onto you, well you're right. I do this to show you how much of a hypocrite you really are. You claim conservative christians to be bigots, when you are a bigot yourself. That is just ONE example of your hypocrisy. IF it is wrong for one group to do it then it is just as wrong for YOU to do it.
You don't see it this way because of liberal conditioning. Instead of actually manning up and admitting when you are wrong, or otherwise admitting fault in anything you simply dismiss the truth about the situation, and instead choose to go with your OPINION of how things really are. This is a very typical liberal tactic. It's a childish mentality that liberal democrats like yourself are known for. Case in point your use of the word "stupid" as an attempted insult.....
Your explanation had nothing to do with the context in which you said that very quote. You very well did imply that they were 9/11 truthers. And just like all liberals caught in a lie you back pedal. I have proven time and again that I am quite capable of not only reading everything you have written but also rebutting everything you have written. Which is exactly what I did with the quote I provided. As far as calling you a douche that was stating the obvious. No anger needed.
Childish attempts at insult aside that is indeed what you implied. In fact you didn't just imply it you said it outright. When talking about Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly, you brought up 9/11 truther bs and ufo bs. I already quoted what you said once. You didn't rebut what I had to say you simply called me stupid. Seems to me that you just threw a tantrum instead of admitting you were wrong. Go take a nap, and get back to me when you are ready to act like an adult.
"And oh yeah- I know more about my writing that you. quit being so conservative stupid" REALLY?? It should've said THAN you not "that you." Also your overuse of the word "stupid" is making you look childish, and ill prepared for this debate.
As opposed to conservative shit birds who lie about people they never met and then claim it's an "observation" you lied about me several times in this thread. when you were caught you werent even man enough to admit what you did.
I didn't lie about anything I simply made an observation from the evidence available to me. If you don't know the difference between a lie and an observation that's not my fault. I have asked you time and again to look up the definitions of both words so you could learn the difference and you have avoided doing so. I don't vote for "magic users" this isn't WoW or any online fantasy game after all. I vote for who I think best represents me. Just like you.
Also IF you have proven me wrong on "multiple occasions" why is that you only bring up the "pagan statues"? You see I already admitted I was wrong about the statues, but you haven't admitted to being wrong about anything. I have proven you wrong on multiple occasions. Remember when you said that the phrase "separation of church and state" was in the constitution? Or how about how "God" wasn't even mentioned in the constitution? Those are just two examples of me proving you wrong.
Actually I only said from what I've seen of Bill O'Reilly that he SEEMED to not be biased. He has both republicans and democrats on his shows. He has people on his show that he has disagreed with previously such as Whoopi Goldberg from "The View." So no I wasn't wrong, as I never said he has no bias. I simply said from what I have seen that it SEEMS that he is not biased. Especially in comparison to some people such as Rush Limbaugh, or Chris Matthews. See how I was bipartisan.
"Actually no I didn't make it up as I went along. You can look up "internet speak" if you want"
Pointing out someone "fail" is hardly internet speak...it's used in vocal communication all the time...and in print. you seem like an angry old man who is bitching just to bitch now.
I'm only 28 but if you consider that old then go ahead. Now you first said that I made it up as I went along, and now are saying that the term "fail" is hardly "internet speak." Which is it hippie? Does it exist like I said or did I make it up as I went a long like you said? Please fell free to tell me I was right this time, but you probably won't because liberal democrats have a hard time admitting when they are wrong. Please prove me wrong hippie.
Also the 10 commandments can be found in the "holy bible" which is also used by christians. I never said america was a christian nation either, I simply said that america was founded on JUDEO-CHRISTIAN beliefs. However if you do want to go with that argument for years america was regarded as a "Christian nation." That is until Obama got into office, but that is beside the point.
"However if you do want to go with that argument for years america was regarded as a "Christian nation." That is until Obama got into office, but that is beside the point."
The Treaty of Tripoli- started under Washington, ratified under Adams. Senate voted unanimously. printed in at least 3 newspapers: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
UNANIMOUS Senate vote...why no "Christian nation" outcry?
"Remember when I asked you about why there the 10 commandments in courtrooms"
I stated DECORATIONS werent law.
On top of that...so what? Most of those were placed in the mid 20th century not by "founding fathers" or any of your other points. Many were part of a MOVIE PROMOTION in the 1950s via Fraternal Order of Eagles and Cecil B. DeMille pimping his MOVIE
Your "10 commandments in courtrooms" have more to do with Charlton Heston than George Washington.
IF this were true to the full extent, explain how the supreme court in South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, all had statues of the 10 commandments outside of the courthouse well before the 1950's. Not to mention your "Decorations weren't law" argument is moot as I never made that claim to begin with YOU DID. So stop putting words in my mouth hippie.
"IF this were true to the full extent, explain how the supreme court in South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, all had statues of the 10 commandments outside of the courthouse well before the 1950's."
about SC: "Hart County Attorney Walter Gordon paralleled the case to the earlier Kentucky trials where the Supreme Court ruled that the displays promoted religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – the separation of church and state"
SOME 10 Commandment in courthouses predate the 50s...some DONT. You "Christ"ians fight to keep in these movie promotion props like in Utah.
What is your point in mentioning these? Mistakes of the past don't make it right or constitutionally valid. You can still find evidence of courthouses had segregated bathrooms. This was later overturned, same as your 10 commandment decorations.
These weren't movie promotions in the states I listed, so why bring that up? Also for the last and final time I am AGNOSTIC. I will not answer anything directed at me anymore claiming me to be a christian. As far as your evidence of segregated bathrooms, that is something that was supported by the DEMOCRATS!! So you are entirely correct mistakes of the past aren't right. However I never said it had anything to do with being constitutionally valid.
"These weren't movie promotions in the states I listed"
You seemed ignorant to the THOUSANDS of movie promotions in the nation that conservative assholes keep fighting for like Utah.
"so why bring that up"
Why bring up decorations in court anyway? I've already proved you wrong of other religions and paganism being in courts. You have yet to make a coherent point.
I did indeed make a point. In fact I made several, but here are two. My first point was that the pagan statues were just that STATUES and had no bearing on how America was formed at all, however Judeo-Christian beliefs did help to sculpt this nation. My second point was pretty clear. The states I mentioned had the ten commandments not as movie props but as actual monuments. You didn't prove this wrong so you reverted back to your original point which had no bearing on the conversation
"My first point was that the pagan statues were just that STATUES and had no bearing on how America was formed at all"
Yeah...but YOU were the one asking me to find pagan statues. If I said I could not and only found Christian statues, you would have used that as "proof" of Christian foundation.
Plus you have to admit, the DATE is hardly a "Christian based" Constitution anymore than saying "Thursday" is Norse paganism.
Finally you agreed with me on something, all be it in a limited capacity, it's a start I guess. The proof of Judeo-Christian influence can be seen throughout the documents we have as well, not just in statues. That is why I said that those particular statues were basically meaningless. Also I never said anything about the date of the Constitution. I asked you to read the document. If you had then you would see that "God" is mentioned several times.
I wish I was there so I can suck Steven in the fucking face. He looks like a fucking faggot who likes to take it in the ass. Great job Steven, you are a man now...yelling at an old women!!
RANDEVUable 3 days ago
Crowder is like, so tuff.
Downfacingdog 1 week ago
wow what an embarassment to America, Occupiers are a joke
digimonrocks123 2 weeks ago
I will no go ahead and list more examples of you being wrong, and never admitting it hippie. You said I made up the term "internet speak" as I went a long. You were proven wrong on that one as well. You said that the democrat party stopped being racist more than 30 years ago. I showed you some of the racist things democrats have said in the past 10 years, thus proving you wrong once again. You said the bible said it was a "sin" to get divorced. I gave you scriptural evidence proving otherwise.
xSamWaynex 3 weeks ago
You're awesome Steven!
kaela907 1 month ago in playlist More videos from StevenCrowder
goddamn i forgot what a pussy crowder is. fighting old ladies.
Show a video of you talking shit to a guy around your same size... and the ensuing crying.
honestly, dont talk tough to old fat ladies... what kind of demon are you?
LiekABaus 1 month ago
She should have given this crowder faggot a black eye
MrRyanHuth 1 month ago
Wow xSamWaynex, you mad bro. I can't tell if you Republican or Democrat? Anyway Crowder is that video legit sir; did you edge that women on. You have some balls dude :)
spacemarine00 1 month ago
Not mad at all, although I do know the reference, and to be quite honest I never found that one that funny, but hey to each his own. Anyway I'm a conservative republican, and proud of it. I can't stand liberal democrats and think they all need to take a time out and think about what they've done..............See what I did there because liberal democrats are childish........................nevermind...........................maybe I am mad bro who knows?
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
you owned her steven. good job, applause earned,
RestrictedSprinter17 1 month ago
Comment removed
hipstermi 2 months ago
Comment removed
hipstermi 2 months ago
Well said Sam, we pretty much agree. The left always tries to hold today's standards to the past like its plausible. My issue with people like Hip is that they cling so tightly to the law when it comes to separation of church and state, but become total hypocrites when the law goes against them like in the case of gay marriage...
Personally I don't think anyone who does any kind of legitimate research into the current administration could support them, unless they hate the US.
BoyKagome 2 months ago
I completely agree with you. Obama has almost quadrupled the nations debt. He printed 10 trillion dollars, and at the time, and even now, America doesn't have the funds to back this up. The American dollar is the world currency right now for all intents and purposes, and when the administration did this it just furthered the economies downfall. America has been downgraded to aa+, after 100 years of being triple a standard.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
Anyway, people like Hip just don't understand how the world truly works. They want everything given to them in their own timing, and in their own way. You ask any liberal democrat about abortion, and no matter how much info you give them, they say "it's legal and that's all that matters" but those same people pitch a fit about gay marriage. They aren't happy unless they get everything they want. This being Christmas and all, it's appropriate to call them out on their childishness.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
Typical Tea Baggers/KKK causing problems at peaceful rallies ;) I can not believe someone would follow a person who has connections with Fox News, knowing that about 70% of what comes out of his mouth are lie and the other is pure bull shit.
BWeav10 2 months ago
This wasn't at one of their rallies. The occupiers waltzed into the building where some republicans were having a meeting and decided to basically throw a temper tantrum like they always do. But hey just like everyone else who supports the occupy movement you spoke without knowing all the facts.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
The southern state leaders were adamant about the 10th amendment, which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or the people." When the federal government tried taking too much power away from the states, the southern states decided to enact their right of secession. The north at this time was all about the federal government, and the expansion of governmental power, not the south.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
@xSamWaynex
Continued from my last point, by putting up strict laws to govern the south almost like a separate section of the country...or its own country, that is expanding more and more laws. Now granted it is in a state like format, but we all know the south itself tried to succeed because they couldn't tolerate the rules set down by the decisions in the capital. They even set rules on the north for making sure escaped slaves were returned back south.
BoyKagome 2 months ago
This is true they didn't like what was going on with the federal government, and instead opted for a more state rule of government with less federal involvement. Therefore smaller state based government, instead of larger federal based government. This is what the founding fathers also wanted. The secession of the south was caused by many things, one of which was states rights.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
Now about the slaves, the second confiscation act of 1862 stated that any slave caught behind union lines was to be deported either back to africa or to places in the tropics. These were supposed to be free people, but they were not being treated like free people. African Americans fought on both sides during the civil war. In the south the ones that fought were paid, and received lodging just like the white soldiers. In the north many were regarded as "volunteers" and were treated
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
quite badly. And can be seen in many of their journals. This is yet another reason why I can't stand it when people single out the south as this backward racist bunch of cousin lovin' hicks. At the time the standards were indeed different, and if you were to look at it from our standards now EVERYONE was racist back then. But the media singles out the south. It's seriously wrong, and it needs to stop.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
@xSamWaynex
"quite badly. And can be seen in many of their journals"
Without quotes, and a few days lag from holidays, I have no idea what you are referring to. I know not using quotes are usually your backdoor when losing, but you see how much more accurate it is here?
hipstermi 2 months ago
You quote me, and then say you have no idea where it comes from, or why I used it. Then why quote me? What point were you trying to make? When I said that they were treated badly I was referring to the african americans who fought in the north during the civil war. Their journals say that they had to do the laundry, and were treated just like they were when they were slaves. William Mack Lee on the other hand also wrote a journal telling of how he was treated like a MAN in the south.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
He was paid for his services, and was never belittled by anyone he worked for. His education was paid for by Robert E. Lee, who happened to be the man who set him free before the civil war. However none of this matters to you because you weren't around back then remember?
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
@xSamWaynex
"and if you were to look at it from our standards now EVERYONE was racist back then"
To an extent I agree with that (outside a few exceptions in each time period) but...there came a time and place when society was more enlightened. Even if you understand a 1920s man for his "niggers in their place" mentality it was less acceptable in 1960, even less in 1970, and not tollerated in 1980.
The GOP/hate gays of today will be remembered the same as the bigots of yesteryear
hipstermi 2 months ago
I agree with you on this one. The republicans who hate gays will be remembered as bigots, just like the democrats who hated african americans are remembered as bigots.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
Look at him liberal dodge, lol.
He wont answer...
Does he obey all laws. What one of the 10 commandments does he want to break
and
... accuses me of being a coward and ugly, but declines a beauty contest... that's just as good as admitting hes uglier.
God he must rage flail every time he comes back to this thread, despite losing he still comes back too; quite amazing actually... I still say hes paid to do it.
BoyKagome 2 months ago
@BoyKagome
"Look at him liberal dodge, lol.
He wont answer..."
??? Did you post something I missed?
"Does he obey all laws"
I confess...I do jaywalk from time to time!
" What one of the 10 commandments does he want to break"
Never said that. But...i really dont think it's a goddam deal to break your sabbath. most "christ"ians never get to rest with the money fleecing church and carting kids to that. why not let them rest on the day of rest?
also saying goddamn= no big deal
hipstermi 1 week ago
@hipstermi
... sorry dude, I Jaywalk too..... So I can't fault you.
Welcome back by the way...
BoyKagome 1 week ago
@BoyKagome
"I still say hes paid to do it"
1. you never met me & know nothign about me. You have "bore false witness". you broke your magical god's commandment...sinned! I am not "paid" to write anything.
2. Your hero turd Stephen Crowder IS PAID to make his propaganda videos and you seem ready to lick his ass over it.
You seem to think just because someone is liberal and smarter than you, they must be "paid". Sorry kid, but that covers thousands if not millions out there!
hipstermi 1 week ago
@hipstermi
-blinks.-... wouldn't you being smarter than me require you to have actually being me in intelligence? Anyway you can say "magical god" all you want; but people on your side believe in him too sooooo don't forget you're insulting them too... also the majority of the American people... and Obama... Wow, you kinda alienate yourself from your own people it seems.
BoyKagome 1 week ago
@BoyKagome
"Anyway you can say "magical god" all you want; but people on your side believe in him too sooooo don't forget you're insulting them too"
I have no problem insulting them as well...but the difference here is the left does cow tow and ass kiss the magical Jesus cult. I mean come on, people like McCain are only "christ"ian when they wants votes. You usually can't run on a Republican ticket without looking like you believe in magical jesus.
hipstermi 1 week ago
@hipstermi
Ok lets be fair then, you don't believe in god fine... So fairness can you give your opinion on what you do believe in? I'm up for a calm peaceful debate if you are, lets compare out two points of views and see what happens.
BoyKagome 4 days ago
@BoyKagome
After your many claims that I was "paid" to have a liberal opinion you :
1. failed to provide any proof to that claim
2. failed to answer that hero turd Stephen Crowder IS PAID to make propaganda videos
why dodge?
hipstermi 4 days ago
@hipstermi
Why are you trying to make this venomous again? Insults only weaken your debate by making you look spiteful and uncaring of evidence. But i'll address your points now.
1. There is proof that the government pays bloggers to go on youtube and other sites using shadow names and what not, the content they post about match some of your arguments.
2. Whether someone is paid or not, if they are reporting facts and back up their points; I have no issue with them.
BoyKagome 3 days ago
GET ME A TWINKIE!
monkeyboy600 2 months ago
Never said decorations have legal standings, however they aren't decorations they are religious symbols, remember when I told you to learn the difference? For the last time, FOUNDED ON DOES NOT EQUATE TO BEING A LAW. Remember my baseball and cricket analogy? Learn to pay attention, instead of being a pretentious ass. You are starting to prove that liberals really are all about themselves.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
@xSamWaynex
"Never said decorations have legal standings, however they aren't decorations they are religious symbols"
They are both. You also "forgot" to answer my point about pagans and even Muhamed on the Supreme Court building. You know.. the points that defeated yours?
"Remember my baseball and cricket analogy"
Yes...non point asshatery.
"Learn to pay attention" typical conservative trick- dont use quotes. This lets you be vague and hide from the fact i proved you wrong
hipstermi 2 months ago
No they aren't both. A decoration is like a painting, or nick-nacks. Religious symbols on the other hand are just that. You don't see the difference because you have no respect for religion. And no I didn't forget to answer anything, I simply pointed out that you were horribly mistaken. Remember when I asked you about why there the 10 commandments in courtrooms? There aren't any laws based on other religions, or other religious observances, but there are laws based on Judeo-Christian.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
@xSamWaynex
"Remember when I asked you about why there the 10 commandments in courtrooms? There aren't any laws based on other religions, or other religious observances, but there are laws based on Judeo-Christian."
Again "based on" is NOT LAW and have no bearing on if gay marriage should be legal or not.
AND the Jews say YOU got the Messiah wrong. The 10 Commandments originate in their religion.even if you want this "Christian nation" fantasy...you should say "Jewish nation"
hipstermi 2 months ago
The Jewish people that I know don't tell me anything about the messiah, as they know I am an agnostic. Kind of weird how you liberals love to jump to conclusions about people, and when they tell you you're wrong you just dismiss what they say and instead keep going on and on about it. Also why are you pointing out my argument to me? I told you "based on" is NOT LAW 12 times already. Why try to make that argument yours now?
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
@xSamWaynex
"I told you "based on" is NOT LAW 12 times already. Why try to make that argument yours now?"
Then what is your point for parroting "based on"? This requires a direct answer on your part.
hipstermi 2 months ago
I have already given you a direct answer multiple times, but here goes again. Something can be based on something without that being a law. Remember my baseball and cricket analogy that you hated so much because it proved you wrong so badly? Please try and keep up with the conversation hippie.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
@xSamWaynex
"Something can be based on something without that being a law"
Which would have nothing to do with the discussion of if gay marriage should be law or the bigots who claim "Christian nation" in opposing it.
"Remember my baseball and cricket analogy. you hated so much because it proved you wrong so badly"
YOU LIE
I didnt hate it, I ridiculed it.
In a baseball game, if you dispute an ump you cant cite cricket rules and say "but it was based on..."
hipstermi 2 months ago
You didn't ridicule anything, not until now anyway. Also you are proving my point for me. I said that baseball was loosely based on cricket, key word there is LOOSELY. I also said that based on doesn't equate with LAW, which you once again are trying to argue. You were wrong, get over it already, and stop going back to that useless argument. For the last time BASED ON doesn't equal LAW.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"I said that baseball was loosely based on cricket, key word there is LOOSELY. I also said that based on doesn't equate with LAW,"
Which mean like Cricket has NOTHING to do with how baseball is governed, magical religion some guys in the 1700s believed has nothing to do in making laws today.
Ergo- you have no point in this stupid comparison.
"I also said that based on doesn't equate with LAW"
Another reason your point fails!
You failed...again
hipstermi 1 month ago
My point obviously didn't "fail" too badly as you started to use that same argument yourself. Now for the last time, I will not say this again I promise, "BASED ON DOES NOT EQUATE WITH LAW" That means law of any kind. Governing would be included in this. You know this, but try to slip it by me anyway in hops that your argument will somehow start to hold water. Our country was influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs and can be seen through the documents at the beginnings of our country.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"I will not say this again I promise, "BASED ON DOES NOT EQUATE WITH LAW"
Then quit bringing up "Christian nation" bullshit as an argument.
"Our country was influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs"
Which has nothing to with what we discussed or if gays should be married.
It was also "influenced by" British parliamentary law and that also has no bearing on the conservative bigotry/ opposition to gay marriage.
hipstermi 1 month ago
For the last time, YOU started the whole discussion of gay marriage AFTER we had already started talking about the US being influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs. So, why try to bring that up in an argument now. Your argument is moot, has been moot, and will continue to be moot. No two ways around it.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
You, and anyone else can clearly see this. Which is why I honestly think that you are arguing just for arguments sake. You saw that you were wrong several comments ago but you are too prideful, and too invested in this to admit that you are wrong. This is common among liberal democrats. Childishness is also common among liberal democrats. Hence you using the term "fail" which is a childish term that is used in "internet speak" it's akin to "pwn." Hopefully you'll grow up someday.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"You saw that you were wrong several comments ago"
I was not wrong on any factual information to the subject matter we discussed.
"Hence you using the term "fail"
And when the other person DOES fail, what would you have me use? Nearner-nearner?
"that is used in "internet speak"
You just made that up as you went along. nice try.
hipstermi 1 month ago
Actually no I didn't make it up as I went along. You can look up "internet speak" if you want. There are several words and phrases that have been used so many times they have been categorized as "internet speak" or "lingo." And yes you have been wrong several times. I have pointed it out each time, and you have just dismissed it. That is childish. Quite frankly I am tired of arguing with someone who is a childish hippie. That's not meant as an insult, but a frank assessment of you.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"That is childish. Quite frankly I am tired of arguing with someone who is a childish hippie"
You insisting I am a "hippie" is not very mature, nor is even remotely honest. But hey...Fox news style- just repeat it over and over! Facts be damned yuck yuck yuck!
hipstermi 1 month ago
You were being, and continue to be childish. You won't admit when you are wrong, that is CHILDISH. I have admitted when I was wrong, but you just dismiss what I have to say when I'm right. Just like you did when I told you about internet speak. Can you please post when Fox news was wrong? Not Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Beck, but the actual news anchors.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"Can you please post when Fox news was wrong? Not Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Beck, but the actual news anchors."
You're saying prove Fox lie, except for 3 who make up a major portion of it's viewership. If you say editorials can be up to opinon, I agree...but I see Sean Hannity flat out lie about the Tea Bagger rally showing the wrong footage...that's dishonest.
O'Reliey was wrong about the massacre at Malmédy. Fox News CHANGE THE TRANSCRIPT on their web page
cont.
hipstermi 1 month ago
Why call them tea baggers? Honestly that is childish. No.....that's Garafaloish which is much much worse. I asked you to prove when fox lied not counting Hannity O'Reilly, or Beck because the News channel itself just reports the news. But liberal democrats continuously call out "Fox News" as this biased right wing organization. MSNBC,NBC, ABC, CBS are all predominantly liberal and have shown themselves biased as well. But I guess their bias is ok because it helps out liberal democrats
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"Why call them tea baggers?"
Because it's funny and balls in the mouth sums it up. Plus...CONSERVATIVES used it! Google "tea bagging for Jesus sign".
"Honestly that is childish"
You're just mad because your guys picked a stupid name that's a sex act. If it was a liberal, conservatives would use it faster than you could say "algore" especially if Rush said it.
hipstermi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
". I asked you to prove when fox lied not counting Hannity O'Reilly, or Beck because the News channel itself just reports the news"
ANd I provided a list days ago. Why didn't you comment?
"Fox News" as this biased right wing organization"
Do you think they are?
"MSNBC,NBC, ABC, CBS .. predominantly liberal- shown themselves biased as well"
MSNBC I'd agree with you, not the others....you guys think "they have guys who vote democrat- that means reporting is liberal'
hipstermi 1 month ago
You claimed Fox News was a right wing network, and was full of liars. Obviously YOU think they are biased. Me on the other hand I don't think the news anchors are biased. And to be completely honest with you O'Reilly, from what I've seen anyway, doesn't seem that biased. He has brought up a lot of issues against conservatives as well on his show. But oh well I guess that doesn't matter right? Also why can you say things like "you guys think" and it's ok but if I do it it's wrong?
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"And to be completely honest with you O'Reilly, from what I've seen anyway, doesn't seem that biased. "
BIASES:
Screaming at Jeremy Glick watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU
badgering atheists, interrupting : watch?v=2BCipg71LbI
cries at atheist display: watch?v=_vfcWiwZEKE
lies about Krugman, screams liek a loon watch?v=QV8WS9ALi5w
hipstermi 1 month ago
Don't tell me what I think. I'm a very opinionated person. If I want you to know what I think I will say it plainly and quite bluntly. I'm not saying I think they are liberal because of the people that work there. I am saying I think they are liberal because of their actions. They won't run stories about Obama that paint him in a negative light. Their political correspondents support Obama for the most part, and anyone who doesn't is often booed and mocked.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
Hell when Keith Olberman still had his show he wouldn't have anyone on that didn't kiss his ass, and the democrat party's ass. He wouldn't have anyone directly on his show that disagreed with him, and very rarely did he have anyone via satelite that disagreed with him. MSNBC is owned by NBC, so if you agree that MSNBC is liberal biased why not NBC?
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"Hell when Keith Olberman still had his show he wouldn't have anyone on that didn't kiss his ass"
1. when did he say that?
2. since I don't watch Olberman, this has nothign to do with what we discussed
3. you didnt answer my question- why isnt fox responsible when Beck, Hannity, and O'Reiley lie?
4. Beck and his "anti christ/ WI protests" episode... conspiracy theory or not?
hipstermi 1 month ago
Why ask the first question as if it never happened, and then admit to not watching "Olberman" and then say that it has nothing to do with what we discussed? It has everything to do with what we discussed. We were discussing talk show hosts who have a tendency to go over the top. YOU called out the people from Fox, I called out the people from MSNBC. I also never said Fox wasn't responsible when their tv show hosts lied. I simply said that MSNBC should be as well.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"I also never said Fox wasn't responsible when their tv show hosts lied. I simply said that MSNBC should be as well."
Oh I see...instead of any mature reply yours is "but they did it worse..."
I met your challenge- I proved Fox lied. with news anchors, editorial shows, etc.
Fox should me more honest and just change it to "Fox Editorial" since that seems to be like 90% of their airtime.
hipstermi 4 weeks ago
Never said that MSNBC was "worse" I simply showed that you are only pointing out FOX news and being biased, and in doing so showing you to be a hypocrite once again. Also you never showed were FOX news anchors "lied" you cited a "feel good" story that was meant to entertain the viewers. You seem to be upset because they said "Jesus" on their show. You are an atheist. If you don't like the program don't watch it. But don't call them liars for airing a "feel good" story. That's childish
xSamWaynex 3 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
"You seem to be upset because they said "Jesus" on their show."
That's another conservative lie. I made fun of them and showed how idiotic it is for "news" to interview a kid about a coma dream he had about Jesus.
You not using quotes does make it easier for you to conservative lie like this I suppose...
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
I didn't use quotes because they weren't necessary. You have continuously mocked the Christian faith time and again. Remember when you called their teachings "church ramblings"? How's that for a quote? It clearly shows that you don't really care for their teachings, and your attitude towards Christians in calling them bigots shows that you have contempt for them as well. It was a "feel good" story not a lie. YOU claimed that fox news anchors LIED. But you never proved it.
xSamWaynex 2 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
"You have continuously mocked the Christian faith time and again"
Their beliefs do that well enough on their own. Come on...talking snake, levitation, super strength? You make fun of liberal ideas, and NOTHING on the left is as outlandish as these magical stories.
"Remember when you called their teachings "church ramblings"
So what? You've called things far worse than that.
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
Whether you believe their faith to mock itself or not is not even in the realm of what I was talking about. YOU have personally mocked their religion and shown your hatred toward it on several occasions. Which I have shown instances of several times now. As far as me calling things far worse can you please name an instance in which I mocked your faith, or anyone else for that matter, in anyway? I haven't. So once again this is a moot point on your part.
xSamWaynex 2 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
"Whether you believe their faith to mock itself or not is not even in the realm of what I was talking about. YOU have personally mocked their religion and shown your hatred toward it on several occasions."
So let me see if I follow your conservative logic:
1. "christ"ians who hate gays/ want to pass laws against them= not bigots because of their "faith" in invisible beings with magical powers... right?
2. anyone who makes fun of christians= bigot.
hipstermi 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. Wrong. This is not my opinion at all. My opinion has been clearly stated. YOU think they are bigots based on ONE aspect of their faith. When confronted with ANYTHING that shows them to not be bigots you dismiss it.
2. Anyone who makes fun of christians=bigot? How the hell can you get that out of ANYTHING I have said? I have given clear and concise reasons as to why you are a bigot. It's not because you "make fun" of them it's because of your overall hatred and contempt for them.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cont-It's because you take hearsay as fact to form your opinion of them. You have called their teachings "church ramblings" and misquoted scriptures, and taken people OPINIONS as FACT. Remember when you said it was wrong to drink, or get a divorce? You said those things based on the OPINIONS of others instead of looking it up for yourself in the bible. IF anyone else would've done the same things to a different group as you have to christians YOU would call them bigots.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
@xSamWaynex
"It was a "feel good" story not a lie. YOU claimed that fox news anchors LIED. But you never proved it."
This is a lie on your part. I made a prompt response to several news anchors who did lie.
You still haven't answered why you excuse Fox news opinion shows like Hannity or Beck for lies.
Still... go back in the list. I replied to this ages ago. You were conservative wrong yet again
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
No you didn't do anything of the sort. You simply chose to accept a "feel good" story as a lie. You only referenced that ONE story in order to call them "liars." To say you did otherwise would be a clear lie on your part. Now for the last time I have already admitted that their shows lie SEVERAL times now. If you have trouble reading get someone around you to help okay? After I said they lied, I asked why was it wrong for them to do so but not it wasn't wrong for Olbermann or Mathews.
xSamWaynex 2 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
"No you didn't do anything of the sort. You simply chose to accept a "feel good" story as a lie"
No stupid. I quoted SEVERAL instances. You even AGREED with me about Megan Kelly's lie that pepper spray is " a food product". YOU COMMENTED ON THAT POST, stupid.
Other Fox lies:
- Bill Hemmer accused Kevin Jennings knew of a "statutory rape" case involving a 15-year-old student but "never reported it." Girl was legal. Conservative lie
(cont)
hipstermi 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once again you didn't quote several instances. You quoted ONE instance. Every other instance that you are now mentioning is the first I am hearing of it. Maybe you are confusing arguments that you are having on YT. I don't know. But it's the first I'm seeing of them. In any case it wasn't just Fox News who reported on the "statutory rape case Washington Times did as well, and so did a lot of other papers all across the country. It wasn't a lie it was a misinterpretation of facts.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a difference. The difference being, a lie is something that is known outright at the time and still told. In this instance all evidence that they had about the case supported the "statutory rape" that they reported on. However instead of doing some research about it yourself you simply went on and on about Fox News reporting it, without ever looking in to see if any other sources reported on it. This again shows your bias.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
@xSamWaynex
- Keith Olbermann exposed Bill O'Reley for being factually wrong about the Malmedy massacre. Bill never admitt to wrong. You will give him a pass for being editorial but...
Fox News edited the TRANSCRIPTS online. They conservative LIED about what Bill even said.
- this year Dana Perino/Andrea Tantaros lied about the vote tally for the Patriot Act Renewal
- "violent Wisconsin Proteststs" showing video clips NOT in WI
(cont)
hipstermi 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Not given O'Reilly a pass at all if he was wrong then he was wrong. But what about Olbermann on the occupiers? He said that the rapes that were being reported weren't committed by actual occupiers. Well he damn sure lied about that, but that doesn't matter right? I mean hey it only matters when Fox News contributors are the ones messing up and lying right?
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh and here is a link showing how Olbermann was proven wrong about the occupier rapes. bigjournalism(.)com/dloesch/2012/02/16/occupy-womens-pants-debunking-keith-olbermanns-pathetic-defense-of-rape/
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
@xSamWaynex
Fox news lied when:
- - repeatedly stated that then-Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan had barred or banned military recruiters from Harvard Law School's campus when she was dean
- lied when they said stolen emails prove climate change false
- lied when they said "self-executing rule" to finalize health care reform in the House, Democrats would pass HC reform "without actually voting for it."
Got more, but thats enough to prove you conservative wrong yet again
hipstermi 1 week ago
@xSamWaynex
"No you didn't do anything of the sort. You simply chose to accept a "feel good" story as a lie. "
1. that story was a lie
2. I listed several other news/ news caster stories- YOU commented on the Megyn Kelly/pepper spray story, stupid
3. i have AGAIN repeated more than a few Fox lies, proving you conservative wrong yet again, stupid
hipstermi 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. Learn the difference between a "feel good" story and a lie. Remember CNN,MSNBC,ABC,NBC,and CBS all have morning shows that do "feel good" stories all the time. So by only addressing Fox News you show your bias, and therefore discredit yourself from being taken seriously.
2.The first time I addressed the issues was the first time I saw them. Maybe you are mixing arguments or maybe it was marked as spam and I didn't see it.
3. Over using the word stupid doesn't make you smart.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When it comes to proving someone wrong I have proven you wrong on more than one occasion and you have just dismissed everything I have said. Shall I go ahead and list all the times I have proven you wrong again, or were all the other lists enough? The difference here is I admit when I'm wrong, like I did with the statues, which by the way is the ONLY time you have proven me "wrong." You on the other hand will not admit when you are wrong no matter how much evidence is provided.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
If you cannot show an instance in which fox news anchors actually LIED, then you must admit that you were wrong. The anchors themselves just report the news. They do current events just like every other news show, which is the majority of their programming. You have a bias against conservatives, and feel that fox news is a conservative channel. Therefore you are allowing your bias to get in the way of the truth. Just admit you were wrong in saying fox news anchors LIED.
xSamWaynex 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"If you cannot show an instance in which fox news anchors actually LIED"
I listed several Fox anchors/instances already. I later asked you to comment on that post. You went silent both times.
"You have a bias against conservatives, and feel that fox news is a conservative channel. "
I think it's a SHITTY news channel. I also don't watch MSNBC coverage either.
Now answer why you didnt respond to my listed times anchors lied.
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
I never went silent. The only post you made showing that they "lied" was when you quoted an obvious "feel good" story. I have asked you several times now to show where they clearly lied, and you haven't been able to. Why should I have to continue to answer this ONE accusation as if you had multiple accusations? This isn't the only time you have done this. You said that you have proven me wrong MULTIPLE times, and only provided ONE instance.
xSamWaynex 2 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
Oh...and since you want to nitpic talk show hosts...O'Reiley and his "cut the mic" chicken shit. O'Reiley screaming at guests (Jeremy Glick, Geraldo Rivera) Gleen Beck and his "anti christ expert". Sean Hannity caught with fake footage on tea party rally. Fox and Friends interviewing a kid who claimed he saw Jesus in heaven. I'll say it again- A KID.
Yeah that's some great "news" station. and dont wash it by "thats not hte reporting" cause Fox aired this shit
hipstermi 1 month ago
Fox and Friends is a morning show much like Good Morning America, and Good Morning America has "feel good" stories on all the time which is exactly what the kid who saw Jesus story was. You have to cater to your viewers, and a lot of Fox viewers are christians, or at least believe in god, which is why they ran the story. This also isn't the NEWS ANCHORS. The news would be the ANCHORS who report the actual news coverage like CNN does.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"Fox and Friends is a morning show much like Good Morning America, and Good Morning America has "feel good" stories on all the time which is exactly what the kid who saw Jesus story was"
??? When has Good Morning America ever shown anything like a kid who saw jesus as "news"?
"isn't the NEWS ANCHORS"
you keep using that as an excuse liek you did for Beck...but Fox need to take responsibility for content.
hipstermi 4 weeks ago
What about during Christmas when they ask everyone if SANTA stopped by there house? Or when they have a big Easter egg hunt. These aren't meant to be taken LITERALLY once again they are "feel good" stories that cater to the viewers. I also never excused anything Beck did, I simply asked why is it wrong for Beck to do something but it's ok for Olbermann, or Mathews to do similar things? If they can "lie", and get away with it, then so can Beck. Get my point yet?
xSamWaynex 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"What about during Christmas when they ask everyone if SANTA stopped by there house? Or when they have a big Easter egg hunt. These aren't meant to be taken LITERALLY once again they are "feel good"
Given the way you are arguing from a position of ignorance, I have to ask...did you even SEE the Fox and Friends piece I am referring to? Or the other times Fox brings up magical Jesus?
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
"I also never excused anything Beck did, I simply asked why is it wrong for Beck to do something but it's ok for Olbermann, or Mathews to do similar things?"
You're making excuses with a "they did worse" thing. Why can't you just answer about Beck?
But for your flimsy excuse- when have Mathews or Olbermann ever compared a group of people to the "anti christ" aka invisible magical demonic being/ supreme evil?
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
@hipstermi Oh please, Olbermann and Matthews regularly compared Bush to Hitler. But, if you put Obama with a Hitler mustache suddenly you are bigot and a racist. The double-standards of the liberal media comical. Maybe it's because just like you, when Obama speaks, you just get a tingle in your leg hahaha. Bunch of idiots.
CRTtoVIP 2 weeks ago
@CRTtoVIP
"Oh please, Olbermann and Matthews regularly compared Bush to Hitler."
By not using quotes, your "reply" might come off as valid, but it's not. I very clearly asked when did either of these guy ever use anything as comparable to the ANTI CHRIST or other DEMONIC beings.
Can you cite the actual Olbermann/Mathews : Bush/Nazi comparison you had an issue with?
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
@hipstermi Well, I would like to see you Glenn Beck "Demonic" charge. The full quote would be nice to see it in context. December 7th, 2010, Olbermann: "I will confess I won’t fight if anyone wants to draw a comparison between what [Obama and Democrats have] done with our domestic policies of our day to what Neville Chamberlain did with the domestic policies of his." Essentially comparing Democrats compromise on tax cuts to appeasement of Hitler aka the Repubs and Bush. There ya go
CRTtoVIP 2 weeks ago
@CRTtoVIP
"Well, I would like to see you Glenn Beck "Demonic" charge"
watch?v=nNzel6tPrFk&feature=related devoted to Wis. & "anti Christ Expert" Joel Richardson who wrote "What Obama and the Antichrist have in Common" he calls the man an "expert" despite that crack pot accusation.
1:00 he compares WI unions to Muslims and "New World Order" and part of the 12 Iman to bring an "anti christ" and his "end of time" claim
Antichrist is demonic, yes?
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
@CRTtoVIP
I'm curious...You do know Glenn Beck is a mormon? They believe in some really dopey shit...including magical beings/ demons.
Ann Coulter had a book calling the left "Demonic"
I cited youtube ass clown Alphonzo Rachel calling liberals demonic already.
(Alphonzo wearing his stupid military hat is a drug addict and high school drop out)
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
@hipstermi Both sides use the invective to describe one another, it's nothing incredible. Also, as an atheist yourself, I don't know how calling someone "demonic" would be deemed as offensive to you? I mean, it's not like you believe in that shit do you? That's what I thought.
CRTtoVIP 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CRTtoVIP
I asked you to cite where Olbermann compared BUSH to the Nazis like you claimed...you failed to do this and instead cited something about Obama.
So your lack of answer, I should take it as a failure on your part? Meaning...you couldn't find one?
I also very clearly asked when did either of these guy ever use anything as comparable to the ANTI CHRIST or other DEMONIC beings. You have failed to answer this. Instead you answered a question...with a question.
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
@hipstermi **see you cite
CRTtoVIP 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CRTtoVIP
Also...you commented to me about Olbermann comparing Bush to Hitler. Let's look at the actual quote you didn't cite I asked for an answer:
"when have Mathews or Olbermann ever compared a group of people to the "anti christ" aka invisible magical demonic being/ supreme evil?"
So I ask again...when have Olbermann and Mathews ever did a supreme evil/ demonic being compare? Hitler is not Satan. I asked for "Thing A" and you unable to give it, gave "Thing B" nice try
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
No I'm not making any excuses what so ever. I already said that Beck was wrong several comments ago. I said that he has a tendency to go overboard with his claims. I never excused anything he did. As far as Mathews and Olbermann go, they have never compared a group to the "anti-christ" that I can remember. However they did go along with the whole "tea-baggers" saying, and even called the group a bunch of racists. This was particularly true of Keith Olbermann.
xSamWaynex 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"As far as Mathews and Olbermann go, they have never compared a group to the "anti-christ" that I can remember. However they did go along with the whole "tea-baggers" saying, and even called the group a bunch of racists. "
I asked specifically for the anti-christ/ magical beings. Your post above shows I proved you conservative wrong, and instead of being mature and admitting it, you have to say "however...this other thing is just as bad"
You lost that one.
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
Obviously you think the whole "conservative" thing is funny and that's why you continue to use it. You make yourself seem like a real douche by using it but oh well whatever makes you feel better about yourself, because you OBVIOUSLY need it. I never said what they said was "just as bad" I simply said what they had done was also wrong, not "just as" so your point is entirely moot.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
@xSamWaynex
"Obviously you think the whole "conservative" thing is funny and that's why you continue to use it. "
Don't cry about it just because you were proven conservative wrong.
"I never said what they said was "just as bad" I simply said what they had done was also wrong, "
Which is like saying the same thing.
Give us a nice big conservative "duuUUUhhhhHHHH"
Maybe your friends can conservative pray to magical Jesus to help you with better comebacks!
hipstermi 1 week ago
Didn't shed a tear, but if it makes you feel better to think of a grown man crying then by all means I'll take the hit on this one. "Which is like saying the same thing.Give us a nice big conservative "duuUUUhhhhHHHH" No need to hippie, as what I said wasn't the same thing at all. You claimed that I said it was "just as bad" when I clearly didn't. I simply asked you to take responsibility and say that what Olbermann and Mathews had said was wrong as well.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As far as asking my conservative friends to pray to "magical Jesus" why would I do that when I am an agnostic? Obviously you are having trouble differentiating between conversations here on YT. I'm not the Christian, I simply took up for them because of your bigoted opinion, and hypocritical nature.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
@xSamWaynex
"MSNBC,NBC, ABC, CBS are all predominantly liberal and have shown themselves biased as well. But I guess their bias is ok because it helps out liberal democrats"
You parroting the "liberal media" conspiracy theory doesnt make it true. I know your script:
1. say guys who work there are Democrat. This doesnt prove 'biase"
2. you will pick a few instances and claim that's a bias
Batshit conspiracy theory and fear is how you guys usually operate. Doesnt stack up to facts.
hipstermi 1 month ago
Really I'm a batshit conspiracy theorist? Wow, that came out of left field...........hahahaha. When you can't prove someone wrong, make everyone think they are insane as to discredit them. All the stations I listed are all predominantly liberal, and have shown themselves to be on NUMEROUS occasions. Sadly, you know this but don't want to admit it, so instead you say I'm "batshit crazy." Either the instances exist or they don't. If they do exist I'm not batshit crazy.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"I asked you to prove when fox lied not counting Hannity O'Reilly, or Beck because the News channel itself just reports the news"
a. I did provide a list...you didnt comment
b. you are "rules" are stupid. Prove when Fox lied...excluding the 3 guys who have/had major popular programing taking up much of it's broadcast time.
You imply that Fox news is somehow not responsible when Hannity, O'Reily, etc. lie. They could demand more facts or fire them.
hipstermi 1 month ago
For one a lot of the time I don't respond to something it isn't because you stumped me, or because I don't have a rebuttal. A lot of the times your comments are marked as spam and are easily overlooked. So I go back and look through the "spam" last and then answer, I sometimes miss a few here and there. In any case, my rule wasn't stupid. I asked you to name when fox news lied excluding those three because while they do air on "Fox News" they aren't anchors they are tv show hosts/
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
Yes they could fire them just like Chris Matthews could be fired when he gets caught in a lie, or Keith Olberman could've been fired YEARS ago for all the lying he did,(thankfully he was let go). However they kept them both because of ratings and money.....well excluding Olberman now, but you get the point.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"I asked you to prove when fox lied not counting Hannity O'Reilly, or Beck because the News channel itself just reports the news."
Just to clarify...are you saying that Hannity, O'Reily and Beck DO lie?
hipstermi 1 month ago
Well, of course. We both know that they have all been caught in lies before. They do this to boost ratings. However, they don't lie all the time, and are still labeled as a bunch of "conspiracy theorists" especially Beck.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"However, they don't lie all the time, and are still labeled as a bunch of "conspiracy theorists" especially Beck."
If you or I was on TV and said 1o0,000 intelligent things...if one of us brought up "9/11 Truther" bs or "UFO coverups" just ONCE.... we would rightfully be called "conspiracy theorist' ....yes or no?
Remember the "Civilian National Security Force"? or his "Anti Christ Expert" talking about Wisconsin?
hipstermi 1 month ago
When did Hannity, Beck or O'Reilly ever bring up 9/11 truther or ufo bs. ALL of them are in fact AGAINST those things. Have you even watched their shows?
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"When did Hannity, Beck or O'Reilly ever bring up 9/11 truther"
No stupid. That's not what I said stupid. Learn to read and comprehend, stupid.
It's mind boggling you came to that really stupid conclusion. You fucking idiot.
hipstermi 1 month ago
Actually it's not mind boggling since that is what you accused them of. Repeatedly calling me stupid isn't exactly going to prove that I am stupid. However if it is a nickname, I honestly didn't know you cared enough to give me one. It's about time though, especially since I've been calling you hippie for almost a month now.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"lly it's not mind boggling since that is what you accused them of."
No stupid. I never accused them of that. Challenge- find me a quote where I said anything remotely like this.
instead of arguing like a child about it...you could just find me a quote. but you wont since you know it will prove you wrong again like i have on multiple occasions (pagan statues anyone)
hipstermi 4 weeks ago
"If you or I was on TV and said 1o0,000 intelligent things...if one of us brought up "9/11 Truther" bs or "UFO coverups" just ONCE.... we would rightfully be called "conspiracy theorist' ....yes or no?"
This is what YOU said. You brought up 9/11 truther bs immediately after discussing Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity. Read what you wrote, and then tell me how I was wrong. Anyone who read that would say the same thing I said that you accused them of being 9/11 truthers.
xSamWaynex 3 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
"This is what YOU said. You brought up 9/11 truther bs immediately after discussing Beck"
No stupid...it's called an EXAMPLE.
I'll conservative dumb it down for you:
1. I said Beck is an idiot & talks about "anti christs" and conspiracy theories
2. you countered and said he brings up intelligent things
3. I used the EXAMPLE of other conspiracy theories to illustrate bringing up things like this would make anyone seem like a nut job
You were conservative wrong AGAIN
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
No STUPID it is called you LIED. You claimed that Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly were 9/11 truthers. YOU said that if you or I brought it up we would be called conspiracy theorists. You were implying in a very obvious way mind that they were conspiracy theorists themselves, and 9/11 truthers. You took special exception to Beck when you were talking about this. No need to "conservative dumb it down" for me. By the way, you sound like a douche by doing the "conservative" thing.
xSamWaynex 2 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
"No STUPID it is called you LIED"
LOL!
No stupid, nothing highlights your inferiority more than when you just repeat what I said about you. What a child with "I know you are but what am I"
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
How many times are you going to use the peewee Herman defense? I have clearly stated several times now that YOU are the ONLY one lying and being stupid during this entire conversation. You equating it to the childish "I know you are but what am I" shows your need for attention and lack of comprehension skills as well. In order for it to be the saying you provided I would have to admit that I myself am a liar and stupid. SINCE I AM NOT WHY THE HELL WOULD I CALL MYSELF A LIAR OR STUPID?
xSamWaynex 2 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
"How many times are you going to use the peewee Herman defense"
That phrase predates Pee Wee by several decades, stupid. if you don't like it, you need to stop actling like such a child with your "I know you are but what am I" tactics. All you do is repeat what I say about you or conservatives (like bigots) & say about me.
"YOU are the ONLY one lying and being stupid during this entire conversation"
LOL- you just did another "I know you are but what am I" stupid.
hipstermi 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I called it the peewee herman defense because it is widely attributed to peewee herman, and it is just shorter than using the actual phrase okay? As far as me just reflecting the comments back onto you, well you're right. I do this to show you how much of a hypocrite you really are. You claim conservative christians to be bigots, when you are a bigot yourself. That is just ONE example of your hypocrisy. IF it is wrong for one group to do it then it is just as wrong for YOU to do it.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You don't see it this way because of liberal conditioning. Instead of actually manning up and admitting when you are wrong, or otherwise admitting fault in anything you simply dismiss the truth about the situation, and instead choose to go with your OPINION of how things really are. This is a very typical liberal tactic. It's a childish mentality that liberal democrats like yourself are known for. Case in point your use of the word "stupid" as an attempted insult.....
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
@xSamWaynex
"You were implying in a very obvious way mind that they were conspiracy theorists themselves, and 9/11 truthers"
No stupid, I never said they were 9/11 truthers. It's an EXAMPLE, stupid. You were given an explanation, stupid.
"No need to "conservative dumb it down" for me."
Given your poor reading and comprehension skills, sure there is.
"By the way, you sound like a douche by doing the "conservative" thing."
LOL! Such anger!
hipstermi 2 weeks ago
Your explanation had nothing to do with the context in which you said that very quote. You very well did imply that they were 9/11 truthers. And just like all liberals caught in a lie you back pedal. I have proven time and again that I am quite capable of not only reading everything you have written but also rebutting everything you have written. Which is exactly what I did with the quote I provided. As far as calling you a douche that was stating the obvious. No anger needed.
xSamWaynex 2 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
"Your explanation had nothing to do with the context in which you said that very quote. You very well did imply that they were 9/11 truthers"
No stupid, that's not what I said.
that's not what I implied, stupid.
You not using quotes is probably causing you to misremember things.
And oh yeah- I know more about my writing that you.
quit being so conservative stupid
hipstermi 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Childish attempts at insult aside that is indeed what you implied. In fact you didn't just imply it you said it outright. When talking about Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly, you brought up 9/11 truther bs and ufo bs. I already quoted what you said once. You didn't rebut what I had to say you simply called me stupid. Seems to me that you just threw a tantrum instead of admitting you were wrong. Go take a nap, and get back to me when you are ready to act like an adult.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"And oh yeah- I know more about my writing that you. quit being so conservative stupid" REALLY?? It should've said THAN you not "that you." Also your overuse of the word "stupid" is making you look childish, and ill prepared for this debate.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
@xSamWaynex
"liberals caught in a lie you back pedal"
As opposed to conservative shit birds who lie about people they never met and then claim it's an "observation" you lied about me several times in this thread. when you were caught you werent even man enough to admit what you did.
No wonder you vote for magic users in the GOP.
hipstermi 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I didn't lie about anything I simply made an observation from the evidence available to me. If you don't know the difference between a lie and an observation that's not my fault. I have asked you time and again to look up the definitions of both words so you could learn the difference and you have avoided doing so. I don't vote for "magic users" this isn't WoW or any online fantasy game after all. I vote for who I think best represents me. Just like you.
xSamWaynex 1 week ago
Also IF you have proven me wrong on "multiple occasions" why is that you only bring up the "pagan statues"? You see I already admitted I was wrong about the statues, but you haven't admitted to being wrong about anything. I have proven you wrong on multiple occasions. Remember when you said that the phrase "separation of church and state" was in the constitution? Or how about how "God" wasn't even mentioned in the constitution? Those are just two examples of me proving you wrong.
xSamWaynex 3 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
You claimed Bill O'Reiley has no bias...I provided you 4 videos showing conservative bias and screaming like a loon to anyone he disagrees with.
you must have "forgot" to answer.
Shall I just take that as another time you have to admit you were wrong?
hipstermi 4 weeks ago
Actually I only said from what I've seen of Bill O'Reilly that he SEEMED to not be biased. He has both republicans and democrats on his shows. He has people on his show that he has disagreed with previously such as Whoopi Goldberg from "The View." So no I wasn't wrong, as I never said he has no bias. I simply said from what I have seen that it SEEMS that he is not biased. Especially in comparison to some people such as Rush Limbaugh, or Chris Matthews. See how I was bipartisan.
xSamWaynex 3 weeks ago
@xSamWaynex
"Actually no I didn't make it up as I went along. You can look up "internet speak" if you want"
Pointing out someone "fail" is hardly internet speak...it's used in vocal communication all the time...and in print. you seem like an angry old man who is bitching just to bitch now.
hipstermi 1 month ago
I'm only 28 but if you consider that old then go ahead. Now you first said that I made it up as I went along, and now are saying that the term "fail" is hardly "internet speak." Which is it hippie? Does it exist like I said or did I make it up as I went a long like you said? Please fell free to tell me I was right this time, but you probably won't because liberal democrats have a hard time admitting when they are wrong. Please prove me wrong hippie.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
Also the 10 commandments can be found in the "holy bible" which is also used by christians. I never said america was a christian nation either, I simply said that america was founded on JUDEO-CHRISTIAN beliefs. However if you do want to go with that argument for years america was regarded as a "Christian nation." That is until Obama got into office, but that is beside the point.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"Also the 10 commandments can be found in the "holy bible" which is also used by christians"
Stating commonly known facts doesn't make you look smart...just dumber.
Not quoting my point- that these Jewish principles predates Christianity, and that religion claims the Christians are wrong...
"I never said america was a christian nation either"
I do believe you did.
"I simply said that america was founded on JUDEO-CHRISTIAN beliefs"
"funded on" isnt law so moot point
hipstermi 2 months ago
@xSamWaynex
"However if you do want to go with that argument for years america was regarded as a "Christian nation." That is until Obama got into office, but that is beside the point."
The Treaty of Tripoli- started under Washington, ratified under Adams. Senate voted unanimously. printed in at least 3 newspapers: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
UNANIMOUS Senate vote...why no "Christian nation" outcry?
hipstermi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"Remember when I asked you about why there the 10 commandments in courtrooms"
I stated DECORATIONS werent law.
On top of that...so what? Most of those were placed in the mid 20th century not by "founding fathers" or any of your other points. Many were part of a MOVIE PROMOTION in the 1950s via Fraternal Order of Eagles and Cecil B. DeMille pimping his MOVIE
Your "10 commandments in courtrooms" have more to do with Charlton Heston than George Washington.
hipstermi 2 months ago
IF this were true to the full extent, explain how the supreme court in South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, all had statues of the 10 commandments outside of the courthouse well before the 1950's. Not to mention your "Decorations weren't law" argument is moot as I never made that claim to begin with YOU DID. So stop putting words in my mouth hippie.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"IF this were true to the full extent, explain how the supreme court in South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia, all had statues of the 10 commandments outside of the courthouse well before the 1950's."
about SC: "Hart County Attorney Walter Gordon paralleled the case to the earlier Kentucky trials where the Supreme Court ruled that the displays promoted religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – the separation of church and state"
hipstermi 2 months ago
@xSamWaynex
SOME 10 Commandment in courthouses predate the 50s...some DONT. You "Christ"ians fight to keep in these movie promotion props like in Utah.
What is your point in mentioning these? Mistakes of the past don't make it right or constitutionally valid. You can still find evidence of courthouses had segregated bathrooms. This was later overturned, same as your 10 commandment decorations.
hipstermi 2 months ago
These weren't movie promotions in the states I listed, so why bring that up? Also for the last and final time I am AGNOSTIC. I will not answer anything directed at me anymore claiming me to be a christian. As far as your evidence of segregated bathrooms, that is something that was supported by the DEMOCRATS!! So you are entirely correct mistakes of the past aren't right. However I never said it had anything to do with being constitutionally valid.
xSamWaynex 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xSamWaynex
"These weren't movie promotions in the states I listed"
You seemed ignorant to the THOUSANDS of movie promotions in the nation that conservative assholes keep fighting for like Utah.
"so why bring that up"
Why bring up decorations in court anyway? I've already proved you wrong of other religions and paganism being in courts. You have yet to make a coherent point.
hipstermi 2 months ago
I did indeed make a point. In fact I made several, but here are two. My first point was that the pagan statues were just that STATUES and had no bearing on how America was formed at all, however Judeo-Christian beliefs did help to sculpt this nation. My second point was pretty clear. The states I mentioned had the ten commandments not as movie props but as actual monuments. You didn't prove this wrong so you reverted back to your original point which had no bearing on the conversation
xSamWaynex 1 month ago
@xSamWaynex
"My first point was that the pagan statues were just that STATUES and had no bearing on how America was formed at all"
Yeah...but YOU were the one asking me to find pagan statues. If I said I could not and only found Christian statues, you would have used that as "proof" of Christian foundation.
Plus you have to admit, the DATE is hardly a "Christian based" Constitution anymore than saying "Thursday" is Norse paganism.
hipstermi 1 month ago
Finally you agreed with me on something, all be it in a limited capacity, it's a start I guess. The proof of Judeo-Christian influence can be seen throughout the documents we have as well, not just in statues. That is why I said that those particular statues were basically meaningless. Also I never said anything about the date of the Constitution. I asked you to read the document. If you had then you would see that "God" is mentioned several times.
xSamWaynex 1 month ago