Jeremy Falcon wrote:

First you do so in an attacking, insulting, and demeaning manor. That's not a very smart tactic to get people to listen.

Oh, *this* is fucking rich, coming from you. Most of the time when you argue, you sound like a 13 year old. I am being serious when I say that, and I am not trying to be a dick. Almost every single sentence you use either accuses someone of assuming something (without actually backing that up), or uses an ad-hominem attack. When you are debating something, calling someone "retarded", "gay", or "dumb", or saying talking to them is "like talking to a brick wall" is a sure-fire way to make everyone else reading the argument think your arguments are worthless. Why don't you grow the hell up and stop arguing like you're in 8th grade...maybe some people will actually start listening to you. Or you could simply leave, since it seems that arguing on these boards is not good for you. For reference, here you go:

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

And if I came to your house with a gun and threaten to kill you're family if you say that again, I doubt you'll be back here saying that on CP. Good, I'll come slap your wife on the ass a couple times when I visit to shoot you. I mean, seeing that it's no big deal and all. Now you're being retarded.

http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1386804&forumid=2605#xx1386804xx[^]

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

Care to support that assertion? [where he was countering an assertion you initially made that you did not back up. Wow!] Stop acting like an ass. Odd thing about dumb people is they love to assume a lot with no real basis If you think I value your opinion of me when you obviously did a piss poor job to even hold an intellectual conversation you're dead wrong. Go sniff some more paint. Well still, since it's not a big deal, I guess your wife's ass is open ground. BTW, look up big words before you use them. You look more like a fool when you use them wrong.

kgaddy wrote:

Hillary's van did hit someone.

I like the way you phrased this, it almost sounds like her van was possessed at the time. Or could it be something else? Let's read the story. 1. It wasn't her driving. So that's why you say "Hillary's van did hit someone.". Ok that's cool. At least it wasn't possessed. 2. She failed to tell her driver to stop for more than 100 yards as they went by at 35 mph. The statement implies that she did tell her driver to stop, but only after they had went more than 100 yards past the scene.  If you do the math here, you will see that 35 mph is about 17 yards per second. That means the driver continued driving for 5.84 seconds after hitting the security guard. I'm sure he should have stopped earlier, but 5.84 seconds isn't bad at all. 3. She failed to call and see how the guy was doing after the accident. Well I would assume that's because she didn't hit him, and being a senator probably means she has a lot of things to do.  Now sure, she could have done a nice PR thing and called to see how he was, but no normal person ever does that after an accident...it would only be PR, and who wants to be patronized like that? Plus, it's obvious from the tone of the article that the writer has severe bias. I mean look at his choice of terms: "Hillary handler" and "Clinton flack". Why would any serious writer use these terms to refer to someone if not to be seen as a sensationalist idiot? Anyways good luck making something out of nothing, like you accuse the people here of doing for wondering if there's anything more to the story of Cheney *shooting* someone. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Roger Wright wrote: the Nanny State that Liberal Democrats are trying to force down our throats Uh, they ain't the only ones forcing it down your throat buddy. The republicans have been in power for plenty long to set things "straight", yet, you don't see any change do you? In fact, many see things getting worse (not just democrats). The whole "small government, fiscal responsibility, moral values, state's rights" thing is a sham. If you can't see that, then you're blind. Once you realize that *nobody* in a position of power in the government gives one tiny shit about you unless you're worth a few million dollars, you'll be better off. Don't blame democrats, blame all the fucking politicians. Remember, it's their goal to stay in power, and if they solved all the problems they promised to solve, there'd no longer be a reason for any of them. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

:laugh: Which one of you guys was whining the other day when somebody called you a "neo-con" ("but liberals are *obviously* using it as a perjorative!"). Bunch of hypocrit cry babies. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Well, your incessant babbling and paranoia makes it hard to tell. Don't say that you couldn't see yourself seriously saying something like that. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Stan Shannon wrote: You're full of sh*t Losinger. No Stan, YOU are the one who's full of shit. You'll settle down as soon as you get your good nice saintly republicunt judges in place. See, you're not worried about judicial activism (or any other abuse of power). I guarantee if it was republicans doing the exact same things you see the democrats doing, we would not hear you whining about it. To prove that, I'm going to predict that in response to this, you'll write something along the lines of "well if we had republicans doing it now, it wouldn't be bad because the democrats have been doing it for so long we need to reverse things". You're just like a 4 year old. Mommy!!!!! I hit Danny and he hit me back! WAHHH!!! I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Chris Losinger wrote: i expect all the Senators and radio talking heads will bring up Schiavo ten, maybe tweleve, times an hour. Whoa, wait a minute. Those Saintly Republicans would *never* do something like that. I mean, every single one of them, bless their souls, is practially speaking for *god* (thru gwb of course). Who knew all you had to do to be so saintly was put an (R) next to your name? Sincerely, Billy Bible Basher (R-CA) i hope it's obvious that I'm being sarcastic I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Last I recall, Europe didn't control the catholic church. And what if they tried? You'd be up in arms screaming about how the "commies" are forcing their will on the church. Give it a rest already, you're such a tiresome fucking blowhard. X| I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Richard Stringer wrote: Anyone who lives in texas should have to pay a large STUPID tax. Dur Hur Hur!! That's durn funny jethro! I agree 10 hunred percent! P.S. Yes I know you lived in CA during the '60s, and I don't care. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

God, it seems like you take the "duh, I'm an idiot" position just to prove that you are even more stupid than we thought before. So you don't seem to get it so I'll try to help. THIS ISN'T ABOUT FORCING WOMEN TO SHOW THEIR BREASTS. Yes, the caps is necessary. J.F.C. already! When you say: "Also, would you want me to see your wife's or mom's breasts? I mean if it's no big deal I should be able to check them out with no problems, right?" You are implying that you (the viewer) should dictate that you get to see somebody's breasts without their consent (or their accident). This is FORCING. Could it be any more obvious? I seriously doubt it. What he's saying is, is it a big deal for somebody (the *VIEWER*) to see someone else's breast? Will it traumatize them? Who knows. I seriously doubt it, since we have ALL SEEN BREASTS BEFORE. And even if we haven't (or you haven't), we know for damn sure that nature intended us to see them. I seriously doubt most of your brain even fucking functions (and since you "seriously doubting" something means it's true, it means when I say it it's true as well). I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

I'm only going to respond to one point here, because I don't care about the rest. Jeremy Falcon wrote: Well, if that is not one of the dumbest, most insecure statements I ever heard. Are you really that insecure you have to rely on a piece of paper to feel important? That's pathetic you big baby. -------------------- So let's follow the conversation here and see if we can come up with the events that caused you to say the above quote. John Theal wrote: Unfertilized embryos inside a female are considered "life" under the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary Jeremy Falcon wrote: Oh really? Because I don't see it there. Cickety[^] By the way there's no such thing as an unfertilized embryo. At least educate yourself first. John Theal wrote: The egg is then developed into an embryo and destroyed. Jeremy Falcon wrote: And just how do you think that process comes about -- magic? John Theal wrote: It would seem that stem cells are injected into the egg and allowed to divide. This is not, by definition fertilization of the egg, rather it is allowing cells to undergo division within a medium. Jeremy Falcon wrote: You don't know what you're talking about. Stem call research isn't the same thing as reproductive cloning. It's for producing stem cells to make tissues and what not from embryonic cells. http://www.isscr.org/science/faq.htm#14a\[^\] And yes, embryos are fertilized already for the second time. ----------------------- So you attack his intelligence twice (while asserting a point that isn't even correct) by saying he needs to educate himself, and he responds back that he is indeed a hell of a lot more educated than you are, and you call him a baby for it? Wow, it sounds like you're the fucking baby. Quit crying about it, he obviously knows a lot more about this than you or I do, and when you brought out the insults he called your ignorant bluff and proved conclusively that you are an idiot. Simple as that. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Bill S wrote: I am very relieved to here this I'm sure you are big guy! Meanwhile, all the folks who are actually old enough to vote, can't wait until the 2nd, when we can kick Wingnut and his pals out of office. Ahh, if only Bill S hadn't grown that brain tumor in his youth, he may have turned out to be intelligent. On second though, probably not! You are a 12 year old troll, and anybody can see it. Go away. Or better yet, go wrap your mouth around W's little 'sos. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Jeremy Falcon wrote: Or just poorly received and not given a enough thought to credit its validity. No, it was just a poor argument. I'd like to hear you argue that allowing people to burglarize and rape other people legally is not destructive to society. How would it affect society in your state if every single woman in there had an abortion vs. how would it affect society in your state if every single woman was raped, and every single home was burlarized? I'm not sure how you came up with this argument, but I'd say it's probably better to use a different form of reasoning next time. Jeremy Falcon wrote: it's good for the economy actually Yes, it's good in the short term for the business owners of the stores where the people go to buy new stuff. But, it's very bad for the insurance company (and people who are insured with them), and it also could be detrimental in the long run. Who's to say these people who were burglarized aren't going to move somewhere else now? Maybe they were a prominent family who spent a lot of money locally, and now they are going to take their money somewhere else. Your simplistic view of the world really highlights your small-mindedness. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Jeremy Falcon wrote: Even if there are children involved, they still have a father to take care of them. Or even an orphanage would be better than having a dead brother or sister I'd think. And, at least the mother was able to experience a life - unlike the unborn child. Nice of you to make that decision for everybody. And what other people don't think putting their children in orphanages would be better? Who the fuck are you to make the decision for everybody? All of the sudden, Jeremy Falcon decides that he "thinks" it'd be better growing up in an orphanage and not having a mother. Wow, I'm sure as hell glad you're not a lawmaker. Also, since you've got it all figured out, what if the pregnancy is 4 months along and the complications will cause both the mother and baby to die? Do we just say "nope, too bad for you and your family", and let both die? Yeah, that seems like a real nice situation. Like Stan said (can't believe I agree with him here), it's arbitrary, and there are way too many possibilities for it to be a simplistic decision. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

I wonder why oh so many republicunts whine about `elite` liberals. Geez, you'd think they were all idiots! Oh wait, they are. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Actually, you here a lot of people saying bush isn't too smart, but he's real "charismatic". Hmm... I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

The strange thing is, the last time somebody announced Anders' website, it was a young guy from denmark who had posted no other messages on this site: http://www.codeproject.com/lounge.asp?msg=868131#xx868131xx[^] This time somebody announces Anders' website, it's a young guy from denmark who has posted only one other message on this site. [edit]BTW, Anders is from denmark.[/edit] Strange coincidence? Anyways, it's a neat site. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

ColinDavies wrote: What if she had displayed a KKK sticker or something else, would people be still defending her. That's comparing apples to handsaws, and you are smart enough to know it. Give us a break. Do you really think most readers of the soapbox are that simple? I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Yes, dance! And if your son or your daughter is slaughtered with an AK47, I'll make sure to post a happy :jig: on CP for ya. :jig: More insanely easy ways to kill people!! I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2

Gary Kirkham wrote: Apparently it is also a nation of juvenile vulgarities. Just curious, why do you feel the need to use them? You could ask Bush or Cheney the same question (not that you'd question your God[s]). In fact, I'm sure you could even ask yourself the same question. Don't even try to say you haven't used vulgarities, and if you have, don't even bother replying to this. With every post, it seems you are more and more of a hypocrit. I use them because they offer a shock value, and a whole lot of emphasis. Of course, it all depends on the people you are talking to. I wouldn't be that offensive if I was running for president and was in front of a large group of people, or if I was talking with a senator, but those are just my standards. I'm not a good christian like bush or cheney. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2