^^^^ :D :D :D

I just love Krellington!

I'm so glad the friendly banter is back .... it's so nice when we all get along :-)

Oh you silly Nigee - even when I'm calling your a fucktard douchebag I still love all of you and would gladly sit down for a tasty non-alcoholic beer (for me) and whatever your beverage of choice might be....even dear Putin....maybe....heh heh

No non-alcoholic beer for me?

GF - "beverage of choice" include your NA choice...but if you come, please do feel free to bring high-powered weapons so we can go to the range afterwards.

yippee aye ay ..... get me my gun, my sister and my moonshine, we gonna have ourselves one big ho-down

Adorable.

It's actually hoedown, Nigee.

I notice that Krellin posted three further times in this thread without addressing my last post.

I therefore say it again, Krellin. You're either intellectually dishonest, or you can't read.

@ bo_sox: "It's actually hoedown, Nigee."

Maybe you haven't met Nigee's sister.*



*Sorry, it was just too obvious an opportunity to miss.

Let's put it this way, Jamie, Krellin is more *honest* than *intellectual*.
That's no way of saying that he is *stupid*...

This forum moves too fast for me... That "school" thread a few weeks ago where Krellin was so furious with Putin, the schoolmaster, I wanted to seriously study and comment... where is it now?

This is the "Ted Nugent" thread. Who's Ted Nugent? (I bet he's knew)

@Putin33 Of course I'm trivializing what you're referring to as "violent & dehumanizing political rhetoric" from Ted Nugent. It's trivial. He isn't even requesting that anyone be injured or killed. Your threshold for "incitement" assumes that speech that might set off a dangerous psychotic needs to be controlled. That's not fair to people who are not dangerous psychotics.

“Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.” ― Mark Twain.

Ted Nugent the rock guitarist?

@ Sylence: Krellin is "intellectually dishonest" on the basis of his *own terms*. You'll have to read the whole thread to get the full picture I'm afraid.

Yes, Ted Nugent, the musician, game hunter and celebrity Republican - that's who we were originally talking about.

@ krellin

Sounds good. I'm a non-drinker myself. I'll bring my M14 and my 1911, provided that we don't meet in a state with Draconian gun laws.

"I notice that Krellin posted three further times in this thread without addressing my last post.

I therefore say it again, Krellin. You're either intellectually dishonest, or you can't read. "

OR.....just maybe....I'm not your trained monkey and don't feel compelled to answer your every demand, as no single person here EVER answers everyone's every demand.

I'm here to have fun, Jamie...I skim the threads...I throw out my half-cocked bullshit, and most of the time it is lazy, half-thought-out, doesn't specifically address what I'm responding to...because I'm more concerned with stirring up shit and changing the conversation than continuing on with what is, no doubt, another bullshit nonsensical argument by a bunch of mental masturbaters.

Sometimes I take a serious stance on somethings and am careful in what I say, how I say it, etc....but that is the exception, not the rule.

You people take this shit wayyyyyyy to seriously.

@ Krellin: "OR.....just maybe....I'm not your trained monkey and don't feel compelled to answer your every demand, as no single person here EVER answers everyone's every demand."

And yet, when you direct a question at Putin, and he doesn't immediately answer it, you post it AGAIN AND AGAIN, IN CAPITALS, CALLING HIM NAMES FOR NOT ANSWERING YOU

And yet, any time a "left winger" posts something that may be inaccurate, and I do not *immediately* call them on it, you call me "intellectually dishonest" for not doing so.

Again and again on this forum you attack others for failing to match up to standards that you yourself fall WAY short of.

Go fuck yourself.

@Jamie - So what? Putin never answers any questions I throw at him - in fact, *most* people in these forums don't answer questions posed to them.

So I fall short of your standards? <yawn....> Annnnd? I fall short of *my* standards? lol Well, sense, as I have stated, I have no standards when if comes to the forums (i.e. half-read posts, do't think out replies, etc...just here to stir shit up...) then whatever you may *think* are my standards for myself, you are wrong.

Yes, that means I have two sets of standards...one for myself, and one for all your raging hypocrites.

And WHY do I have two standards? BEcause *I* dont' profess to take this shit seriously, thus I don't care if you think I am failing. But you...hooo hooo...YOU are one of those ass clowns that think this shit is *real*, that gets your undies in a bunch over nonsense, and you truly do think some stadard applies here, so I hold you to the standard you actually think exists...and therefore you, and so many many other...fail miserably.

And yes, you are a raging hard-on of a hypocrite when you call me out instantly on something that you won't call the Libtards out on. Sorry, pal, deal with it.

I'm quite happy, though, to see I've got your undies in such a bunch and distracted your from the mental masturbation of the thread. My job here is done.

"I have two sets of standards...one for myself....."

Everyone please remember this quote whenever, in future, Krellin throws up the term "intellectual integrity". He doesn't have any. He admitted it here.

Not at all, Jamie. I simply said most of the time I really don't give a shit and am here to fuck with people. That fact that I am telling you this *IS* integrity, Jamie, as opposed to al those fucktards out there (which may or may not include you) who actually think they know everything and are always right on every subject.

Lack of integrity would be the person who claims that all these conversations are *very* serious, and their participation is *very* serious, and they always try their hardest, blah blah blah...and then pick and choose who and when to answer. The person who lacks integrity would be someone who makes very serious claims about the seriousness of this all, and calls people out for breaches of logic/integrity/whatever, but does not call people out *equally*...but instead only calls out opponents for logical fallacies or whatever, instead of calling out everyone.

For example, I have called out Draug in the past, even though he was generally an "ally" in discussion. Do you call out your allies?

Further...are you telling me a drunk can't call out another drunk? Once I am a drunk I am somehow forbidden from calling out someone else who has a problem? That...of course...is ridiculous.

So, if I am one with a lack of integrity, then I know what it looks like. Hey...guess what...it looks like YOU, my friend...my friend-who-lacks-integrity...


You can remember this quote all you want - it doesn't make a difference. When I join a discussion I either will or will not demonstrate intellectual integrity in the moment, in the context of the discussion.

If you want to call me out at that time, feel free, and then we can discuss the merits or lack-thereof of the particular argument.

For the here and now, I call you out as a hypocrite who lacks integrity, who calls out opponents but will not call out allies for the same faults...you lack integrity, period.

But most of all...see how well I have perverted and distracted this thread?

*masterful*

"Your threshold for "incitement" assumes that speech that might set off a dangerous psychotic needs to be controlled."

No, I'm not going to use the mentally ill as a scapegoat. Plenty of mentally "healthy" people are violent and dangerous, as well as easily pressured by influential peers. See: College Campuses.

Your threshold of incitement is impossibly high and the United States is virtually alone in the world in having such a high threshold for incitement.

“Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.” ― Mark Twain."

Cute slogans and/or bumper stickers were never a good basis to make sound policy.

"Your threshold of incitement is impossibly high and the United States is virtually alone in the world in having such a high threshold for incitement."

And thank God we do.

Yes, thank god, nothing says common sense like having unregulated firearms and unregulated laws pertaining to incitement. And we wonder why the murder rate is so high.

Firearms are regulated, incitement is illegal. You just want a broader application of both. At least be honest.

You be honest. Under current "regulations" people are allowed to walk into bars with guns, people can strap on M-16s when they go pick up a coffee at Starbucks, and people can fire guns in residential apartment complexes. Incitement being illegal is a sham. It's about as illegal as sodomy in Oklahoma.

You're wrong about incitement. Again, you just want a broader definition.

As for firearms, you're using your typical anti-gun hysteria. Not worth my time.

@ Krellin: "I call you out as a hypocrite who lacks integrity, who calls out opponents but will not call out allies for the same faults...you lack integrity, period."

As I have pointed out to you before, but you chose to ignore, I generally consider myself on the same side as Putin, but I have "called him out" multiple times, in public, for making points that won't wash.

Your attack on me has no *integrity*

Jamie my sad man, you have quite a hard on for me lately. I'm quite proud of myself for pissing you off that much....but seriously, I don't really care about what you think or don't think....but I enjoy the hell out of the fact that I have so distracted you that you are now trolling and keep taking the discussion off point.

I win.

Haaaaaa ha ha ha ha!!!