it really doesnt fuckin matter imo either.
its just another one of those petty things

_________________
H.I.I.T. should stand for hellaciously intense interval training

Jesus man, you spend years getting to be pals with someone on the internet and then you find out he's a frickin' Czechxican.

I feel really, really cheated right now. Damn.

_________________
I look in your eyes and c fear! Ill take your sole and give it the devil

so just to liven up this thread, i think an anecdote of my personal life would be very nice....

Sooooo.....

Today me and my "wing man" Steve decided that, we're so good at pulling girls, we should film each other doing this and then put the videos on YouTube.

So today, we spent all afternoon, hitting on girls on the street, getting phone numbers, recording each other (with mics and video and EVERYTHING it's awesome) and we're going to film us getting the numbers, spycam film the dates, and spycam film the SEX!!! Now, that's funny

Ok, so one girl i approached, went up to her, bla bla bla, ran my spiel, then sent her a text, and JUST THIS LAST MINUTE, she replied:

"Hi Khurram, to be honest i didn't expect to hear from you at all its surprising. I am free tomorrow so text me and we can have a coffee. I'm russian by the way,"

That's pretty much a done deal.

In other news, i no longer do drugs, they're bad, i've come to realise, Except marijuana.. but i can't smoke that shit anymore, fucking up my lungs. Need to invest in a vaporiser *hrrrrmph*

_________________
http://thefightweek.com/

Saying that black families held together better under slavery than the welfare states doesn't mean that slavery itself wasn't still detrimental to the black family unit. The Russian peoples fared better initially under Stalin then they did under the Nazis. That's not saying that they literally fared well under Stalin though, just pointing out how much worse the Nazis were. And it most definitely isn't any endorsement of Stalin!



Nope, because the goal of slavery isn't to hold black families together, and the goal of welfare isn't to break them apart. So the logical inference doesn't hold.



A few things:

1) I'm not backed into any corner here because I do not see how anything I have said is racist. I don't see it as having been "pointed out" as if it is somehow solid irrefutable fact or something, it is the opinion of some that it's racist, which they have stated multiple times. It is my opinion, which I continue to argue, that it isn't racist. It is so clear to me that it isn't even remotely racist that I wonder how on Earth anybody could even see it as racist.

Tell me, what if it was clear as day, irrefutable, that the black family unit has been harmed more by welfare policies than by slavery? Is no one supposed to point that out because they'll be shouted down as racist? If one was to point that out, it SURE AS HELL IS NOT any endorsement of slavery. Now go to the people right now who believe this, even if ultimately wrongly. You can argue they are wrong that welfare has been more damaging to the black family unit then slavery, but they most definitely are not racists.

2) The climatologist friend I talked with later and he hadn't been referring to whether global warming exists or is man-made, but about the part of the subject that you say is still being debated, i.e. things like how the atmosphere will react to climate change in the future, what will happen, etc...in terms of a "conspiracy" the reason I was open to that idea was due to what happened with eugenics and with socialism, both of which were the consensus among the experts studying them, yet both of which were ultimately junk science.

3) I didn't see part of my family being black as really important to the discussion as I figured people would just shrug it off or something.



Yes, that's part of why I thought bringing up part of my family being black wouldn't have mattered, because if people think you are knocking a race, that part of your family or yourself is of that race doesn't really matter.

Dude, it's become pretty obvious you have some messed up views without basis and they kill your credibility. For a lark and because I had time, I gathered a few links to sort of serve as a collection of your various views, your tendency to gather sources from right wing blogs while simultaneously claiming diversity of resources, and your complete denial in the face of information that contradicts the narrative you've constructed in your head.

http://www.rosstraining.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=63192: Wheels points out that Medicare's increasing costs show that the CBO's cost projections can't be trusted because they were wrong about Medicare. It's pointed out that the CBO didn't run cost projection analysis of Medicare because it didn't exist yet.

http://www.rosstraining.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=59945&start=60: In which Wheels cannot comprehend of a world in which the GOP is literally being petty and playing politics with the issue of health care. He fixates on details, has them explained to him, accepts the answers, and then goes right back to fixating on those details.

http://www.rosstraining.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=62244&start=340: In which wheels claims that the Joker, a fictional Batman villain, is an example of a brilliant but insane individual, when we were asking for a real life example for the purpose of our argument. He insists that this is a valid response.

http://www.rosstraining.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=62244&start=360: Same thread. In which wheels claims that various radical left wingers are being appointed by the Obama administration, and therefore are justified in being blocked from taking office. After being shown that the only "radical" thing about the lot of them is that they accept the reality of global warming and accept that we have to do something about it, he insists that this is actually a mass conspiracy on part of scientists. In this epic thread, I not only prove to Wheels the reality of global warming using actual studies, but how global warming "skepticism" is actually intentional misrepresentations pushed by oil companies in order to stall efforts to do anything about it, and expose Wheel's laughable exclusive use of right-wing blogs and oil backed studies while he claims he has a "diversity of resources" as well. In the course of this conversation, Wheels repeatedly insists on a left wing conspiracy, then completely denies it even when his own words are explicitly quoted back to him. He also insists on a conspiracy on behalf of scientists, and is debunked with pure common sense.



...hrmm... that thread is actually ripe with stuff.

http://www.rosstraining.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=62244&start=260: In which Wheels claims that Israel has never hurt Palestinians, never breached a UN resolution, etc... He is provided with an exhaustive list of UN security counsel resolutions that describe various inhumane breaches by Israel toward Palestine. He then claims that the UN security counsel is "biased."

Earlier in the same thread, he claims that the US never tortured anyone. We point out how the US has. He denies it still.


Wheels is not a credible source for most anything. He's got some racist opinions, gathers all his information from far right wing resources, claims bias for anything that doesn't conform to those resources, and his views don't evolve with greater information.

I don't think I'll be responding to him anymore on this board, much like I don't respond to bloodywanker. That being said, when I stopped responding to bloodywanker, people started asking why I hadn't responded to his arguments. If I'm asked, I'm going to provide those links, over and over again.

Adam out.

_________________
Please try and defend your positions in the future better than the standard “I’m going to the gulag for speaking my mind” bit.

Nothing messed-up about my argument for this particular thread, and yes it has plenty of basis. Your problem is you are unable to refute it, but it goes so much against your opinion that you can't stand it, so now you're going to try to refute it along the lines of, "Here are a bunch of other areas where I think Wheels was wrong, so therefore he must also be wrong here."

I mean seriously, the whole following spiel would be completely un-necessary if you could quite easily refute my point.



adamantine27, that is a minor error, and I think you miss the central point there, which is that if the GOVERNMENT overall couldn't properly project the costs of Medicare, then what makes anyone think it will properly project the costs of the AFA? That it's the CBO doing it now doesn't somehow magically increase it's abilities. I am hoping that if upheld by the Court, that the cost projections are correct, but I am still a bit skeptical on that front.



That's a long thread, so maybe I am missing the part where I "can't comprehend" the GOP has never been petty or engaged in partisan politics, however I do remember I distinguished between the Republican party as a whole and the Republican party politicians. The Republican base as a whole is not being petty or engaging in partisan politics regarding healthcare. You can argue they are wrong, that's fine, but they have never supported things like an individual mandate or anything like that.

Certain Republican POLITICIANS, on the other hand, yes they are hypocrites to a degree in that during the 1990s some of them supported an individual mandate very similar to the AFA. But that is an example of when Republicans complain that the party's politicians oftentimes are not conservative and basically act as Democrat-lite, as they see it (and conservatives did not like that elements of the GOP were embracing the idea of an individual mandate back in the 1990s). As a result, the party's base is holding the Republicans to a high standard now in that they want them to be actually conservative, such as with the healthcare law.



YEP, and then I realized the fallacy of my ways there. It's called learning. It happens. That's WHY I debate, because you learn when you present your viewpoints to folks who disagree.



Actually, some of them are pretty radical in certain ways. Steven Chu's positions are that we have to get the price of gas up to what it is in Europe (yeah, he backed away from that later, but that's for reasons of politics) and that it is okay for the U.S. government to essentially outlaw incandescent lightbulbs (and yes contrary to what the proponents claim, including himself, they're being outlawed) because the American people are too stupid to know what product to buy.

Sotomayer was caught mocking the idea that justices are not supposed to create law from the bench. And Goodwin Liu believes that terms like free enterprise, private ownership of property, and limited government (all of which he places in quotes) are "code words" for an agenda hostile to environmental, consumer, and workplace protections: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... ectoldpage I'd love to know what on Earth he means by placing them in quotes as those are not arbitrary words, they are core principles held by certain people regarding their political philosophy, and two of them (free enterprise and private ownership of property) are central to the existence of the republic and free societies in general. According to him, if someone says they are for free-enterprise (as opposed to the government driving the economy), private property (i.e. not allowing people to be run of f their property for special interests), and limited government (as opposed to big government), then they don't care about issues such as the environment, workplace, and consumer safety.



I agree on the global warming issue and I was wrong on that. While I do not believe in mass conspiracies, it has been shown occassionally in science for there to be a massive amount of collective willful ignorance of evidence that is to the contrary of what the consensus position is. I am not arguing that's the case with global climate change, but I mean it has happened. Such an occurrence isn't a conspiracy though, which would imply all the scientists know they are wrong but conspire together secretly.



It is. Good grief, look at how much Israel, a tiny liberal democracy, gets criticized by it in comparison to other nations that engage in real slaughter. A majority of the resolutions condemn Israel for human rights violations. Yeah, there is no bias there. The country can't even defend itself from attack without getting criticized for human righs violations. Meanwhile you have countries in Africa, countries in the Middle East like Syria, etc...engaging in wholesale slaughter of their people, but no one nearly cracks down on them as much. The primary reason for the plight of the Palestinians as it exists is that the other countries in that region use them as a tool with which to pressure Israel and make it look bad. They otherwise don't give a crap about them. Israel is a tiny liberal democracy surrounded by other countries that are at best on so-so terms with it. It desires peace. It has gone consistently out of its way in order to try to get peace, being willing to give up some very sacred areas. Each time it has been rejected because its enemies don't want peace, they want to destroy it.



I've noticed that you have a tendency to manipulate out of context my points of view, so rather than respond to this, I'll just say that you'll have to cite the specific part where I claimed this so I can read it, as that thread is too large for me to go through page-by-page to find it.



Completely wrong on all accounts:

1) My opinions are not racist. That is just your opinion, an opinion which you have thus far been completely unable to substantiate at all. Since you can't substantiate it, you've decided to dig up past threads, basically on the logic of, "I can't disprove this guy's argument here, so I'll just show how I think he's been wrong in the past, and that will unto itself disqualify his arguments here."

It's a lousy way to try to make your point.

2) I do not gather all of my information from "right-wing" sources. I DID have a problem with doing that regarding global climate change, but I realized that fallacy and don't do it anymore.

3) I only claim bias when there's a clear bias, not when something doesn't conform to my POV.

4) You haven't been reading much if you think my views don't evolve with greater information as I conceded much in the healthcare and global warming debates.

And BTW, you yourself have been wrong on some things. Doesn't mean you aren't right on other things. You have to go by a person's arguments on each issue. On a slightly related note, one thing I recently discovered that you might want to be aware of, in our climate change debate, you had written the following:



I wasn't aware of it at the time, but in the world of climate science, there isn't really any such formal education that makes one a "climate scientist" or a "climatologist." Most climatologists have degrees in fields such as mathematics, physics, geology, meteorology, atmospheric science, chemistry, etc...for example, look at the website RealClimate.org's contributors:

Gavin A. Schmidt - BA in Mathematics, PhD in Applied Mathematics

Michael E. Mann - undergrad in Physics and Applied Math, M.S. in Physics, Ph.D in Geology and Geophysics

Caspar Ammann - site says he is a climate scientist, doesn't mention what degrees he has

Rasmus E. Benestad - physicist by training in atmospheric, oceanic, and planetary physics

Raymond S. Bradley - paleoclimatology from what I can tell

Stefan Rahmstorf - physicist (who at first worked in early relativity theory) and oceanographer by training

Eric Steig - isotope geochemist, Ph.D in geological sciences

David Archer - computational ocean chemist

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert - Ph.D in hydrodynamic stability theory, professor of geophysical sciences

Thibault de Garidel - Ph.D in geosciences

Jim Bouldin - research ecologist, Ph.D in plant science

then here are some other climate scientists:

James Hansen - B.A. in physics and mathematics, M.S. in astronomy, Ph.D in physics

Peter Gleick - Ph.D in energy and resources

Kevin Trenburth - Sc. D in Meteorology

Michael MacCracken - Ph.D in applied science

...and so on...

So even if you disagree with scientists who are climate change skeptics, technically geologists, physicists, oceanographers, chemists, meteorologists, etc...can make counter arguments regarding global climate change as well. A "climate scientist" or a "climatologist" generally seems to be a person with an education in some field heavy in physics and math who has devoted themselves to studying climate-related issues. That someone has their Ph.D in such a field doesn't automatically disqualify them as "not being a climate scientist" if they are skeptical of some element of climate science.

I got another one.

Slavery = black families stay together
Black players start dominating the NBA = Black families fall apart

OMG! Basketball has destroyed the blacks!

_________________
http://thefightweek.com/

Don't quite believe i'm reading this and it was written seriously. Wheels do you honestly believe that there's no global warming happening and there are no problems with the worlds weather because of it? What about all the polar ice cap melting because the planet has heated up so much? Is that a mirage?

I saw a piece on the news ages ago here about it and the comparison between where the ice was just a few years ago and where it is now is stark and staring you in the face.

The only people who refute this are: people who are churning out pollutants into the air from their business's and politicians who, for their own agendas, say it's not happening.

Nothing to do with Obama just an observation from that previous thread.

_________________
You don't know what you'll do 'til you're put under pressure, across a 110th Street was a helluva tester!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOg_8hCC4u4

All of this is irrelevant and way off topic, not to mention against forum rules on talking about race.

After the bang week the Obama administration had you who support his reelection should be concerned that his second term is in serious doubt.

The silence by the leftists on this board says enough to me.

Scott Walker wins recall election handily, a smack down of big labor bullying and intimidation.

Job numbers show trouble for the president yet he says the private sector is doing fine.

Eric Holder may be held in contempt of congress.

Sen Feinstein ( far from a right wing wacko) and others on the left are calling for an investigation into Obama admin national security leaks which if true are stunning in their recklessness.

At this rate all Mitt has to do is show up.

Finn, I'm not too concerned at his chances at this point regardless of this week because, as I pointed out in the Obama 2012 thread, elections don't seem to get good numbers that you can follow hard until September. You yourself pointed out that McCain was leading in 2008 until September. So I looked back and, historically, races aren't really "started" until about September. For example, Kerry was leading Bush until around September in '04.

As far as the Scott Walker thing goes...well, it just seems like the biggest bungle in terms of Democratic strategy. I mean... Walker beat this guy initially to win the governorship pretty handily. And then, when he does something controversial enough that there are enough people to trigger a recall, who do the Democrats run? The exact. Same. Person. How was that guy supposed to win? People don't turn out to vote in large numbers because they're AGAINST someone; they vote because they're FOR someone. What the hell kind of strategy was that??

However, I do think that what you said about the smack down in labor is absolutely true. After an election like that... I don't see how it's supposed to come back. In fact, it's ranks are not only getting less and less dense here (and have been since the 70's), but across the world as well.

As far as the "public sector is doing fine" thing, here's the FULL quote:

here's a graph to illustrate that:


Public sector is losing jobs. Private sector isn't. Unemployment measures both at the same time, with no difference. So... I don't know.

As far as Holder being held in contempt? Okay. If he's held in contempt, he's held in contempt. Vote on it, let's see the evidence, and see whether he acted improperly.

As far as security leaks? Investigate them and make sure they're handled. I don't have any problem with making sure national security is kept that way. Shit is harder to keep private these days anyway, with all the tech that we use. The main thing to figure out is a) whether secrets are being sold and b) whether there's a systemic command to leak this stuff.

Anyway... not too worried at this point of Obama's chances.

_________________
Please try and defend your positions in the future better than the standard “I’m going to the gulag for speaking my mind” bit.