Newt grinning is the most terrifying thing I've ever seen

[joshuatxuk]

its the first time she's ever seen a black guy

 

also i heard newt gingrich said palestinians were invented in the late 70s t/f?

 

this is a widely spread ultra-right argument based on a complete fabrication.

 

gimme a min and ill post more.

 

ok, before eugene runs in here and does what he does, theres a ton of obvious problems with the argument people like Newts.

 

 

First, Palestine is ONE TERM defining an area and its inhabitants. First introduced in 1922 by Britain over the Transjordan and disputes involving the "Palestinian Mandate".

 

Now, first recorded in 1922...does that mean Palestinians didnt exist until 1922? Think about how ludicrous a statement like that is.

 

Were the Russians "Russians" before Russia? Were Americans "Americans" before the United States? Its a complete non-argument based on this common logic alone, and yet so many people eat it up like fact, I don't blame them as its pushed as if it were somehow scholastically reliable or even reliable in the realm of common-everyday sense. Bertrand Russell's head would explode if he read these arguments today.

 

Well this explains his Moon colony plan. No one's there, therefore no invented people to worry about. Maybe the moon colony will revolt and start a new democratic country where I can go to find the American dream. Romney's not for moon exploration, probably because Mormons already have Kolob, and it's way cooler than the Moon. Santorum finds the whole non-Heliocentric concept of space confusing. And then this...

 

"Health care or something else deserves a lot more priority than going to the moon." - Ron Paul drops a sanity bomb. Too bad it endorses Obamacare. I mean, is it really conservative to say the health reform issue should be more important than spending trillions to send a dozen scientists on a celestial rock to conduct high school experiments? I think not. In fact, I think the founding fathers would disapprove good sir.

 

I didn't watch the debates but they sounded hilarious. Apparently Romney touted, get this, the fact that his wife fought MS and Cancer and they are still happily married. If he indeed out-trolled Gingrich, than kudos to him.

 

Anyone on twitter? Patton Oswalt was on fire... https://twitter.com/#!/pattonoswalt/status/162714946747121664

[SR4]

he didnt endorse it at all, he was stating that the matter needs to be settled, not that the system should continue as it is.

 

 

If dis hates Paul at the utmost, her hatred is but a drop of water in the ocean compared to my hatred towards Rick Santorum. If Paul would take us back to the 1800s, Ricky would easily take us back to the 1300s.

[Guest disparaissant]

your hatred of santorum is but a drop in the ocean of MY hatred for santorum

srsly dude

im gay

this is rick santorum we are talking about

my hatred of rick santorum makes my hatred of ron paul seem like puppy love

i just try not to think about him because he's never really been a viable candidate.

and also because i dont want to pop a vein in my eyeball, that's never pretty.

[SR4]

your hatred of santorum is but a drop in the ocean of MY hatred for santorum

srsly dude

im a sane human being

 

fixed

[Guest disparaissant]

haha well THATS arguable

[Guest disparaissant]

[baph]

Oh my fucking lol

[pattern recognition]

i enjoyed this thoroughly:

 

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/406797/january-24-2012/indecision-2012---rick-santorum-s-senior-pandering

[Guest disparaissant]

i too enjoyed that quite thoroughly.

 

romney all like WHAT UP HOMIES WHATS CRACKIN YO PASS ME THAT 40

[Guest Adjective]

he took my arm

[eugene]

its the first time she's ever seen a black guy

 

also i heard newt gingrich said palestinians were invented in the late 70s t/f?

 

this is a widely spread ultra-right argument based on a complete fabrication.

 

gimme a min and ill post more.

 

ok, before eugene runs in here and does what he does, theres a ton of obvious problems with the argument people like Newts.

 

 

First, Palestine is ONE TERM defining an area and its inhabitants. First introduced in 1922 by Britain over the Transjordan and disputes involving the "Palestinian Mandate".

 

Now, first recorded in 1922...does that mean Palestinians didnt exist until 1922? Think about how ludicrous a statement like that is.

 

Were the Russians "Russians" before Russia? Were Americans "Americans" before the United States? Its a complete non-argument based on this common logic alone, and yet so many people eat it up like fact, I don't blame them as its pushed as if it were somehow scholastically reliable or even reliable in the realm of common-everyday sense. Bertrand Russell's head would explode if he read these arguments today.

 

There's tons of other historical examples going behind it, but honestly the argument need not go further than that.

 

Edit: I should clarify what my point is nice and succinctly. The year a "nation" is claimed to have been established does not coincidentally establish the existance of the the people who founded said state. This is a logical fallacy at its essence.

 

you're always ready to write tldr before even trying to understand the argument, no one's saying that the people didn't exist, he meant it in palestine-as-a-nation sense.

[SR4]

did you watch the debate?

 

 

point out to me where he specified the nation and not the people. point it out. Palestinians are an "imagined people." Sound like hes referring to the nation state? Did he clarify? Not further than saying "they were Arabs."

 

You are so quick to pull the propaganda out that you don't even hesitate to review it now do you?

[eugene]

i don't need to watch the debate to understand that, it's a popular arguemnt among the right-wing here that the republicans are copying. he's refering to palestinians as people of an imagined/artificial nation state, the argument is there was never an actual nation state called palestine but all kinds of people ruled by all kinds of empires.

[SR4]

all kinds of people ruled by all kinds of empires? wow thats interesting. thanks for clarifying this. so what if, i dunno, all of these disparate groups of people banded together and announced the creation of their own nation-state via some vague two millenia old religious right?

[goDel]

what happens? they get all emotional about it. that's for sure. most of all on online message boards and such.

 

On topic though: I can't get past the irony of grinning Richy being regarded as a god. And grinning Newt as the most terrifying thing ever seen. I'm sure that if Cunningham produced the grinning Newt you'd be wetting your pants all over.

[eugene]

all kinds of people ruled by all kinds of empires? wow thats interesting. thanks for clarifying this. so what if, i dunno, all of these disparate groups of people banded together and announced the creation of their own nation-state via some vague two millenia old religious right?

i referred to people who were living in palestine, i guess you're referring to zionists. there's nothing vague or religious about jews' claim to the land anyway. the announcation came after the world recognized this claim, arabs didn't like it and the rest is history.

[SR4]

all kinds of people ruled by all kinds of empires? wow thats interesting. thanks for clarifying this. so what if, i dunno, all of these disparate groups of people banded together and announced the creation of their own nation-state via some vague two millenia old religious right?

i referred to people who were living in israel, i guess you're referring to palestinians. there's nothing vague or religious about Palestinian claim to the land anyway. the announcation came after the world recognized this claim, save for the few countries under the U.S. bloc, Israelis don't like it and the rest is history.

 

 

see what i did there?

[eugene]

well i guess the gingrich issue is over and you realize your mistake. i could try to fix the mess that's going in your head about the whole israeli-arab conflict but is it really the thread for this ?

[baph]

i enjoyed this thoroughly:

 

http://www.colbertna...enior-pandering

 

I'm so glad Baby Jessica jokes still work, lol

[SR4]

well i guess the gingrich issue is over and you realize your mistake. i could try to fix the mess that's going in your head about the whole israeli-arab conflict but is it really the thread for this ?

 

oh no no, please by all means continue to pat yourself on the back. its a hard-earned victory for you.

 

if it were just about anyone else on this forum other than yourself, id have no problem dedicating the time for a decent discussion with you, but seeing as you have proved time and time again now your immense level of mental midgetry, consider it a victory.

 

my god, I can understand now why Awepittance gives you so much shit. Its like talking to a brick wall that has somehow become possessed by a mildly retarded Goebbels.

[baph]

what happens? they get all emotional about it. that's for sure. most of all on online message boards and such.

 

On topic though: I can't get past the irony of grinning Richy being regarded as a god. And grinning Newt as the most terrifying thing ever seen. I'm sure that if Cunningham produced the grinning Newt you'd be wetting your pants all over.

 

Newt is real.

 

And running for president.

 

Of a place with nukes.

[goDel]

Running for Republican candidate.

 

And this is not about his grin, is it?

[Guest disparaissant]

gonna leave this here

[awepittance]

i have to give eugene some props, i've never met anyone in real life or even over the internet who is that loyal to their own government's policies. It's pretty impressive if you look at it from his undaunted persistence.

[eugene]

i'm not personally loyal to government policies at all, it's just that on watmm it's more interesting and more beneficial to present (so called) right-leaning arguments. what would be the point of me condemning settlements or condmening the govmnt for the maltreatment of palestinians or some other shit, you can get enough of that on your own.