Obama and Europe - two of the silliest things ever

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Strike, you are the only person on earth who actually takes anything you say seriously, so rather than wasting bandwidth posting here, maybe you should just stand in front of your cracked mirror and have 1-liner-sation with yourself. It will save everyone a lot of bother.

What you said about him - is how we feel about you right now.

Unless, of course, you want to claim I have been Strike's Alt all this time?

[Slyspy]

Gregoshi and Strike have the right of it.

[Beskar]

Want to make Bush look stupid? Snap enough pictures of his face and you'll get the dumb expression you want.

I am feeling the referencing there, Gregoshi!

[Strike For The South]

Strike, you are the only person on earth who actually takes anything you say seriously, so rather than wasting bandwidth posting here, maybe you should just stand in front of your cracked mirror and have 1-liner-sation with yourself. It will save everyone a lot of bother.

False, I rarely take anything I say seriously. One only needs to look at the grammar and spelling of my posts to come to the conclusion that I am mentailly impared or starved for attention.

Personally I feel somewhere between those two poles is a happy medium.

I'll be honest VUK Im still fairly convinced you're a troll but if your not I shudder in fear to think these are your actual opinions. I can listen to conservatives, libreals and all the rest but its members like you who trully leave me at a loss. I think I am most blown away by the fact that you think these opinions are valid and your reached them by using critical thinking skills.

Then I realize your vote counts the same as everyone elses, But before you go off on a rant on I think I am better than you, read this. Guys like Saski and PJ (among others) are smart guys one only needs to look at how they saved the pornography thread from you. I talk to you for the sport of.

I come here becuase it is a bully pulpit, Very ralery do I use anything othen than conjecture becuase sometimes it's fun to be a sanctimonious, self richoues prick.

In fairness to Strike, your OP consisted of:

1. Obama is so stoopid
2. Obama stares at ladies' butts

There's not a lot of room to respond to that sort of thing seriously. IMHO, Strike is giving like he's getting.

*Secert "prefered member" ORG handshake*

What you said about him - is how we feel about you right now.

Unless, of course, you want to claim I have been Strike's Alt all this time?

Paint me like one of your French girls

[a completely inoffensive name]

Vuk steals my job of dumbing the conversation down half the time and does it in a much more enthusiastic and efficient manner.

Therefor I ask the moderators to deport Vuk from the backroom.

[Montmorency]

Vuk steals my job of dumbing the conversation down half the time and does it in a much more enthusiastic and efficient manner.

Therefor I ask the moderators to deport Vuk from the backroom.

Wrong thread.

[Fragony]

The Obamamania here was emberassing to the least, with the height of hilarity giving him the Nobel peace-prize just he's Obama. Leader-cultus isn't gone at all in Loonieleftistan. They were so certain of it but wrong as usual, there isn't any change... they can believe in. He isn't.... him

The non-demigod Obama aka human is an ok president I guess

[CountArach]

Vuk, you're going to have to do better than that...

[Ronin]

The Obamamania here was emberassing to the least, with the height of hilarity giving him the Nobel peace-prize just he's Obama. Leader-cultus isn't gone at all in Loonieleftistan. They were so certain of it but wrong as usual, there isn't any change... they can believe in. He isn't.... him

The non-demigod Obama aka human is an ok president I guess

agreed that giving him the Nobel was a really silly move on the Nobel institution side... I think he is a fine president but that was really for...nothing really.

as for people that are asking for Vuk's removal from the backroom.
as one of the older members in this forum (10 years and counting) I must remind you that we are in a forum that managed to handle much worse (who was ultra-christian that interpreted everything on the bible literally? Navarros? something like that?) - Vuk is almost reasonable by comparison.
let us not be so thin skinned, you darn kids....back in my day we had it much harder...ohhh yes, I remember having to walk 10 miles to and from school every day, in the rain and snow....and it was uphill... both ways!!!

[Lemur]

Yeah, speaking as someone who has caused his fair share of trouble—and as the only mod to don the green robes while still holding an active warning point or two—I don't think it's reasonable to demand that Vuk be yanked from the BR. Was this a silly thread? Yes. Do we need to get our corsets in a bunch over it? No.

[Kralizec]

(who was ultra-christian that interpreted everything on the bible literally? Navarros? something like that?)!

Navaros. Isn't your member title a parody of his? I recall his title being "standing up for morality". I miss him...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I must remind you that we are in a forum that managed to handle much worse (who was ultra-christian that interpreted everything on the bible literally? Navarros? something like that?)

I thought Navaros was a troll account used by Tribesman?

And didn't he convert to Islam or something ridiculous like that?

[Kralizec]

No, I'm pretty sure Navaros was the real deal. On another forum I used to visit years ago there was also a member called Navaros which had the same...opinions and posting style. Eventually got himself banned, too. I got the distinct impression that the .org version was the same person, allthough that's obviously open to doubt.

[CountArach]

Navaros was legit. There was no way that someone could argue as much or as passionately as he did without being real.

[Vuk]

Wow, I don't believe it. Someone disagrees with your views, so you want them banned. After all, that is the liberal way: crush all opposing views and hide them from sight (or site in this case). Honestly, that is kinda pathetic.
I mean, you are not up in arms over PJ being a holocaust semi-denier and a Nazi sympathizer, but because someone said something you didn't like about Obama, you wanna ban them. You sure got your priorities straight.

[Lemur]

Someone disagrees with your views, so you want them banned. After all, that is the liberal way: crush all opposing views and hide them from sight (or site in this case).

Don't overstate your case. One user asked that you be banned (possibly in jest), and two stood up for you right away. Please put away your victim card, sir.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I mean, you are not up in arms over PJ being a holocaust semi-denier and a Nazi sympathizer.

When (?) PJ held those views, didn't he get banned multiple times and put on several user's ignore list?

Don't remember it myself but I remember it being mentioned.

I may well be wrong so if so ignore this.

[Lemur]

That's correct, PJ paid a price for holding and expressing some extreme views, although I do not believe he ever came down as a Holocaust denier. Furthermore, my understanding is that a lot of his WWII posts are a reaction against NAZIS BAD ALLIES GOOD reductionism, which is a tricky but fair line to walk. Not all Wehrmacht were monsters; not all Allies were saints. That's legit. (Although, given the scale and publicity of evil that happened under the 3rd Reich, it's a difficult point to make, and leaves the arguer open to accusations of Nazi sympathizing and/or historical revisionism. Both of which have been hurled at PJ in quantity and quality. And in fairness to PJ, he has taken the criticisms as they came.)

[Vuk]

When (?) PJ held those views, didn't he get banned multiple times and put on several user's ignore list?

Don't remember it myself but I remember it being mentioned.

I may well be wrong so if so ignore this.

I am not saying we should ban PJ for being a Nazi sympathizer. I personally find those views reprehensible, but I also think he has the right to them. It was the hypocrisy from members I was commenting on.
The fact that one member should actually suggest that someone be banned because he disagrees with them, and then other members, rather decrying the practice of banning someone who does not agree with you, they 'stick up for me' by basically saying that I do not disagree with them significantly enough to be banned.
I just think that entire attitude is a little absurd.

[rvg]

PJ was a lot more fun back in his nazi days. He gave the backroom some of the much needed flavor.

[Vuk]

That's correct, PJ paid a price for holding and expressing some extreme views, although I do not believe he ever came down as a Holocaust denier. Furthermore, my understanding is that a lot of his WWII posts are a reaction against NAZIS BAD ALLIES GOOD reductionism, which is a tricky but fair line to walk. Not all Wehrmacht were monsters; not all Allies were saints. That's legit.

If I remember correctly though, we did not have individual members calling for him to be banned though, it was the mods. (which, particularly, I think is absurd, as it should be his right to hold whatever views he wants, regardless of how incredibly stupid they are. When his arguments are cut down, it will be educational to the rest of the board to see how they don't make sense.)
The attitude is the same that people have with Rush: that if they don't like what someone says, the authorities should censor them. That is a good way to have a world of stagnating, never changing views, and removing all room for intellectual advancements.

[Lemur]

other members, rather decrying the practice of banning someone who does not agree with you, they 'stick up for me' by basically saying that I do not disagree with them significantly enough to be banned.

Both Ronin and I jumped in immediately and declared that you should not be banned for expressing an unpopular view. I'm terribly sorry we didn't do so in a way that meets with your approval.

[Vuk]

Both Ronin and I jumped in immediately and declared that you should not be banned for expressing an unpopular view. I'm terribly sorry we didn't do so in a way that meets with your approval.

That is not what I meant Lemur. Don't get me wrong, I am appreciative that you did. I just was a little surprised that neither you, nor Ronin openly condemned the idea of censoring someone who did not agree with you. While I appreciate you sticking up for me, it just seems to me that you did it for all the wrong reasons. (or at least, that is how it came across)

[Lemur]

it just seems to me that you did it for all the wrong reasons. (or at least, that is how it came across)

I think the distinction is this: If an Orgah genuinely holds and unpopular view, no way in hell should he or she be banned. But trolls do happen, and there have been occasions when someone stops by just to stir up trouble. As I took it, ACIN was suggesting you were a troll, and therefore banworthy. Ronin and I were saying no, not troll, no banstick. So yeah, as long as you're arguing in good faith, it's all legit.

-edit-

And as for the Limbaugh comparison, that doesn't hold water. Nobody has suggested he be censored; they are trying to undermine his financial base. That's not opposing free speech, rather, that's opposing paid speech. Big difference. I'm free to say what I like, but getting cash moneys for it is a privilege.

-edit of the edit-

Last point: I do not believe PJ ever got in trouble with the mods for his Wehrmacht posts. Rather, it was when he would say something that appeared to bash entire races, ethnicities, religions and/or nations that he would get the enforced timeout. And that sort of thing is clearly out-of-bounds by Org rules.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Vuk, your posts are hard to read for someone who isn't frothing at the mouth in support of your political viewpoint.

Those pictures you posted are actually famous for being shot by a live, moving picture camera. It's a still from a rolling film. The film shows that Obama was not even remotely close to looking at a girl's butt. The angle is wrong, the timing is wrong, there is precisely one frame which looks incriminating taken out of context. I would google the stupid thing and post the video, but something tells me watching the tape yourself wouldn't cause you to back down one iota from your main point, which is that Obama is a dumb skirt-chaser, essentially.

Then when folks point out stuff like, facts... which contradict your views, you seem to get all bent out of shape and defensive.

You really need to relax man. It's ok to make friends with liberals and it's also okay to get off the partisan war machine for five minutes.

See this, right here:

It is one thing if you are some redneck who doesn't care what people think about you, but it is different when you are the President of the United States. First of all, anyone with a professional job in a professional environment should be quite grown-up enough to not be staring at women's nether-regions. You are supposed to get past that in your early teen years. As President, he represents an entire Country, and as such, should be on his best behavior. Also, one of the 'women', was an underage girl.

This is the righteous indignation of a person who doesn't have the slightest clue what is being referenced by those pictures, which as funny as they are, are absolutely, without a single doubt, 100% misleading stills of live video which prove your point is actually completely false.

[Askthepizzaguy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKaJzL3Y19Q

That took literally 2 seconds to find. Jebus tap-dancing Santa Claus in a halter top. When the video actually was shot in 2009, it was immediately debunked. The still portion of it anyway. What in the blue hades compels people to dig this up again and trot it around as if it had any meaning in the slightest?

[Kralizec]

I think the distinction is this: If an Orgah genuinely holds and unpopular view, no way in hell should he or she be banned. But trolls do happen, and there have been occasions when someone stops by just to stir up trouble. As I took it, ACIN was suggesting you were a troll, and therefore banworthy. Ronin and I were saying no, not troll, no banstick. So yeah, as long as you're arguing in good faith, it's all legit.

Looking at ACIN's post I doubt that it was intended seriously.

That said, some people apparently enjoy being permanently outraged. Who are we to deny them these simple pleasures?

[Vuk]

Vuk, your posts are hard to read for someone who isn't frothing at the mouth in support of your political viewpoint.

Frothing at the mouth? Because I criticized Obama. Yeah, totally frothing at the mouth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKaJzL3Y19Q

That took literally 2 seconds to find. Jebus tap-dancing Santa Claus in a halter top. When the video actually was shot in 2009, it was immediately debunked. The still portion of it anyway. What in the blue hades compels people to dig this up again and trot it around as if it had any meaning in the slightest?

I just saw the video AtPG, and it sure looks to me like he is checking her out. I think you are doing too much listening to the commentary and not enough watching the video. Him and the Frenchy both look like they are checking her out.
A comment on the video cracked me up:

REMOVED

Really though, he has a point. The video obviously shows Barrack Hussein Obama checking out an underage girl, but obviously not to someone who cannot see past partisan lines and must rush to the defense of their hero.

[Ronin]

Navaros. Isn't your member title a parody of his? I recall his title being "standing up for morality". I miss him...

yup..that's where my title came from

[ajaxfetish]

Vuk steals my job of dumbing the conversation down half the time and does it in a much more enthusiastic and efficient manner.

Therefor I ask the moderators to deport Vuk from the backroom.

I think you're being a bit oversensitive here, Vuk. ACIN's post, while certainly not flattering to you, seems very clearly to me to be a joke. His rationale for a ban is not that he disagrees with your opinions, but that you're stealing his trolling job (or at least making it redundant). It's basically a 'darned immigrants' type of claim. So you have one person make a joke requesting you be banned, no one else suggests any such thing, and multiple posters step in to make it clear that difference of opinion is no basis for a ban. Of course it's not, and you can go on saying stuff that's as crazy as you like until judgment day. If you do ever end up banned, it will not be for having offensive opinions. If you still want to assert your victimhood, stick to the solid ground of people making fun of you or your ideas, because there is plenty of that here (though I have to say it seems rather justified).

Ajax