Please run for President

Is there a prize for the most amount of space used in responses?

Is there a prize for the most amount of space used in responses? Originally Posted by KCJoe

KC can you believe that I am being called a liberal.

I could have been somebody! I coulda been a contender!

Sir UsedToBeSomebody. LOL! SUTBS!

Severely
Utterly
Tired of
Bull
Shit

LOL! Thanks, Catnip!

kcbigpapa: My mistake. I thought using two "nots" in one sentence constituted a double negative. I didn't realize they changed the word "not" so that is no longer used in the negative in the English language. I have not not not been in English class in a long time so maybe the rules have changed.

That depends on usage dumbass. In a double negative, the second negative word cancels out the first negative word. With the way I used it, the second "not" doesn't cancel the first one out.

What I said:

"Smart people would examine something before they talk about it, but again, you're not smart, aren't you?" - herfacechair

The "not" in "Aren't you" works as part of a question, and takes on a different meaning from the first "not" that I used. For example, "Are you not the same turd that started this thread?" Two different meanings; hence, my usage doesn't constitute a double negative.

kcbigpapa: I am happy to see that Burger King not only gives out crowns to children, but apparently they are giving out degrees as well. Congrats. Did you double major in mopping and lettuce washing? Get your masters in line prep, or as you would put it... manufacturing. What was your topic for your doctoral thesis? Does the 5 second rule apply after I have freshly mopped the floors?

It wouldn't surprise me that someone, stupid enough to misinterpret my word usage as a "double negative," would assume that Burger King issues degrees. You're probably the type of student that teachers pushed through, giving you the minimum passing grade, because they deemed your stupidity to be of such severity they were honestly afraid that your ignorance and stupidity would rub off on the other students.

On the bright side, you're perfect for those that believe in re-incarnation, because there's no way that you'd get this stupid in one lifetime. And since your brain appears to be severely underutilized, you need to identify it as something that you'd like to donate… to someone that'll actually use it.

You could also use this as a way to raise money for the area you went to school at... since your teachers failed you by refusing to work with you. You should go back to the education system, that pushed you to graduation, and sue them for dereliction of duty and get the public's money back.

thorugh9: There is an old adage that says "if you'll tell one lie, then you have to tell another". That applies to this discussion because in order to justify one lie, you'd have to go back and re-write history to make the lie a truth.

This is precisely what you, and your allies in this thread, are doing. What I've presented, with my argument, are facts. They're facts based on a combination of formal study and years of personal research. What you dismiss as a "lie" to support another "lie" are facts intended to support other facts.

thorugh9: 1. If English common Law was so influential, and if both the colonists and the regulars were such staunch followers of English Common Law, then the "warning" was unnecessary. If the right to life, liberty, and property, were so prevalent, then it would have been a foregone conclusion that the colonists were not giving up anything, and the "warning" was unneccessary. INDUCTIVE FALLACY

If you look at English History, as well as the two thousand year history of Natural Law, you'd find that your assumption misses one key element… The human factor. Not only has there been heated arguments held with regards to following English Common Law, but wars were fought.

For instance, we an instance in England, where a nobleman, a night, reminded the King that he couldn't just make a law at whim, that he was subject to the law that the parliament… representing God and country, made.

We also had the series of events in English history, like the Magna Carta (sp) and the English Civil War, where the masses did something serious to get more rights, which caused English Common Law to become what it eventually became.

Your statement is like saying, "Hey, both the Church and the State forbid murder! Since it's commonly accepted in society that murder is wrong, there should be no murders being committed!" However, the human factor jumps in, and we have murders constantly taking place, despite laws and society's overall beliefs on murder.

When human emotions get involved, there's a tendency to disregard any law, and to do things based on emotion. When it comes to the topics that we're debating, the series of acts that the British Parliament passed; that required the colonials to make specific purchases and to pay the taxes on those purchases, were meant to help the Parliaments' favorites… they violated a principle aspect of English Common Law… they violated the contract that the colonies had with the King.

The Regulars' moves against the Colonials, to capture their weapons, violated English Common Law. The Colonials, by ringing their bells and firing their weapons, sent a clear message to the Regulars… one that the Regulars understood… that the later wasn't going to take the former's weapons.

My argument still stands.

thorough9: 2. The American Revolution was no accident.

Not quite. Both sides knew that the situation made conflict possible, at the same time, both sides tried to do things to minimize the possibility of a conflict. The shot heard round the world shocked people on both sides of the Atlantic.

thorough9: The colonists were well organized and deliberate in their pursuit of independence.

Again, not quite.

First, they saw themselves as British. Separation from the crown wasn't even remotely close to the minds of the majority of the colonials. When violations of colonial rights took place, the Patriot's reacted by addressing those specific violations… with the end goal of having them stop.

Second, they weren't always well organized. Specific groups may have been organized in their political objectives, but there wasn't a colony wide effort to gain independence. If anything, our founders had heated debates with each other when it came to arguing on how to move forward.

thorough9: They may not have known the exact date that war was coming, but they were prepared to go to war, hence hidden stockpiles and weapons caches

Hiding stockpiles of weapons was a reaction to word, and knowledge, that the Regulars were going to disarm the Colonials. It wasn't part of a long term goal to fight for independence. Again, both sides tried to avert conflict up till the minute shots were fired.

thorough9: - a militia that is in place for centuries, although i doubt that they were in america since the middle ages, would have had no need to hide their weapons caches, especially if this militia was the national guard to the regular's Regular army.

Nowhere did I argue that we had colonies here in during the Medieval Period, and nowhere did I claim that we had militia here during that time.

What I did say was that our system of warning, using bells and drums, was around before the Europeans established colonies. The warning system that the colonials used was something they inherited from their ancestors, who came over from England. Their ancestors used that warning system in England, which was still using that warning system by the time the American Revolution Broke out.

With the defeat of the French during the French and Indian Wars, and with England annexing former French Colonies… to include the Indians in that area recognizing that England was the new master for their regions… The British started to view the colonial militia differently. With the colonials reacting to the contract violations perpetrated by the Parliament, the UK made a move to disarm the colonials… something the Colonials weren't having.

Hiding their weapons was a way to negate the chance that they'd get confiscated.

It had little to do with a large, 13 Colonies Wide, common movement to fight for independence. In fact, the vast majority of the colonists didn't want to severe ties with England. Regardless of which numbers you use, as to the number of Patriots to Tories, both present another number… the colonists that didn't side with either. The Revolutionary War wasn't a popular movement.

thorough9: The Sons of Liberty, the Minutemen, among other active guerilla-type resistance groups were paired with the passive, written political resistance to the crown. There was a clear separation b/n those who were for the british or against them; Loyalists and Tories were harrassed and terrorized even before the shot were fired at Lexington.

One of your sources indicated that there's a large dispute on how the Sons of Liberty got its start. One of your sources indicated that they originally formed to react to Parliamentary Acts that affected cash flow in the colonies. They started off with the same concept as our veteran nonprofit organizations of today.

The minutemen were the colonies version of the Special Forces, ready to assemble and operate "within minutes," they were used since the 17th Century. The Revolutionary War was fought in the 18th Century.

The passive, political, resistance came from mostly educated, rich men, who had something to lose with the Acts that Parliament was passing.

Again, the initial acts for these groups were passive, and were a move against acts that violated their rights, not against the crown.

thorough9: 3. The resistance was against the crown and their policies. To assert that a particluar resistance was against the Tea importer, and not against the British Government basically invalidates the colonists' "taxation without representation" argument. Did they expect representation within the tea company? RED HERRING

WRONG.

Again, the Stamp Act was an attempt from keeping the British East India Company from going belly up. That Company was a cash cow for the British Economy, if it falls, many in the UK would've been drastically affected.

The Stamp Act wasn't beneficial to the colonies. It represented a tax on the colonies, in violation of the agreement that the colonists forefathers had with the King's forefathers. Part of the contract was that the colonies would provide the taxing authority over the colonies. This derived from laws that evolved in England, this concept is similar to the one that resulted in the Magna Carta, or the evolution of the British Parliament.

The Colonies were to only be subject to the law of the land, in this case, laws passed in the colonial legislatures. This is where the "No taxation without representation" argument fell under.

When the British passed those acts, the colonies reacted against the beneficiaries for those laws. They used economic warfare against those that were to benefit from those laws. Again, the Patriots knew that the British East India Company was a cash cow for England, and that the Stamp Act was intended to keep this cash cow up, so that it could hopefully keep funneling money into England. The taxes would've caused money to flow into the coffers of the British Treasury.

The colonists' move against this? Cause colonial demand for the tea to go down, and to reduce the chances that the tea would make it to its destination. Economic warfare against the Tea Company, so that the British would see that the Stamp Act wasn't the Cash Cow they hoped that it'd be.

The objective was to end the Stamp Act, not to gain independence.

thorough9: 4. Paul Revere was a runner for a group that had a pre-planned operating procedure: One lamp if the british came by land and two if by sea.

We're not debating about whether Paul Revere was a runner for a group or not, nor are we debating about whether they had a pre-planned operating procedure or not. However, the warning wasn't being set to warn of British movements, as most colonials saw themselves as "British." It was a code that they were using to warn of the Regular's movements.

thorough9: It is a logical fallacy to say that an alarm both wakes the sleeper and warns the slumber that it's time has ended. INDUCTIVE FALLACY

The only logical fallacy that I'm seeing is your argument trying to compare an alarm clock to the reasons and intents that the colonials continued their alarm system. You're comparing apples to oranges.

The alarm system served as a tool with more than one purpose, especially that night. It's primary purpose was to get the colonials on line. One of its secondary purposes was to warn the Regulars that they weren't going to take the colonials' weapons. It's like my man on porch example, where a home owner communicates, that they're not going to kick him out without due process, with his stance and weapon.

thorough9: The regulars, under english common law, already knew that they weren't taking anything, so just who were the alarms for?

The Regulars were moving to take the colonials' weapons. Like I said earlier in the thread, their hope was that the Colonials would cooperate. When they heard the bells and drums, they know that the Colonials' didn't intend to give their weapons up.

thorough9: And still, no facts. I've presented info and you've presented opinions. With all of your high-tech instumentation, and such, it would seem to me that it would be a small task to present some kind of official, documented, info in support of your opinion aka "facts".

WRONG. I'm going to tell you something similar to what I told Longermonger:

This is what I mean by the opposition refusing to go beyond the traditional, basic, explanation of what happened during the American Revolution. What you dismiss as "opinion" are facts that you refuse to factor in.

Mainly, English Common Law, Common Law, and God's Law.

I took a college course, history area, that focused on our Founding Fathers. The detail of the text that we studied was awesome, it made High School History seem like a 1st grader's picture book. In order to make sense of some of what was talked about, you had to do additional research…

You can't even come close to understanding what happened during that time unless you understand English Common Law. Your paraphrase falls short of a true understanding, and knowledge, of English Common Law.

You, with your refusal to step outside your comfort zone, with regards to the American Revolution, force yourself into a handicapped position in this fight. This isn't "opinion," quotations used strongly. This additional detail is based on the founders themselves, the written reasoning's they gave for their actions… not just the narrative of what they did… but the explanations… explanations that were consistent with English Common Law.

Again, with the ringing of the bells, a secondary purpose was to warn the Regulars, without writing or voice, that they weren't going to take the colonial's arms. Again, go back to my man on porch with gun example.

If you're going to continue to ignore these additional facts, you don't have a leg to stand when farting your rubbish that I've given you "nothing" but "opinions," again, quotations used strongly. By dismissing my arguments as "opinions," you argue against the founder's very own explanations behind their actions.

So far, I've read about these in history books related to the topic, had I known that a bunch of dumbasses were going to be narrow minded about this, I would've held onto those books so that I could give a title and page.

I stand by my statements, years of research and reading, and the facts that support my statements.

thorough9: P.S. "you're not smart, aren't you" is a double negative.

WRONG.

When "not" is part of a contraction in an implied question, it takes on a different meaning. So, when I say this:

"Smart people would examine something before they talk about it, but again, you're not smart, aren't you?" - herfacechair

The first "not" is intended to be a negative, the second "not," part of a contraction, contributes to a different meaning… it becomes part of a question, where it loses its meaning as a single word, but communicates a meaning when used as, "aren't you?"

thorough9: IF you can't be honest about that,

I've been honest and straightforward with what I've argued on this thread. Don't mistake your misunderstanding of what a double negative is, as you apply it to my post, as a cold hard "fact." My accepting your argument would require me to be intellectually dishonest, and to kick integrity out the door. Something I have no intentions of doing.

thorough9: why should anyone believe anything that you post....

Prior to making my first post here, I didn't expect the opposition to believe anything that I said… that contradicted their rubbish. If the people that I debated with for almost 8 years disagreed with me, I wouldn't expect you guys to agree with me.

catnipdipper: This is some kind of Rugby Scrum.

I see this the same way I see a combat operation. This is a "war" of "attrition" where I keep "firing" until the opposition is "neutralized" or "eliminated."

catnipdipper: Mano y Mano over an irrelevant person mumbling about an event I doubt she had ever heard of before that day. REPEAT POINT

First, if Sarah wasn't relevant, the media wouldn't cover her, no matter what she does. But, whenever she does something big like go on a bus tour, the media covers her. Not exactly "irrelevant."

Second, the idea that she was talking about an event that "she may not have heard about before that day," is pure rubbish… unless you're talking about her touching on facts about the Revolutionary War that most people didn't know about. Trying to recite something new, when you're still trying to mentally synthesize it, increases the risk that you'd misspeak it.

catnipdipper: I can see the intellectual workout as being beneficial but it is also like nuking El Salvador just for fun.

The intellectual workout took place before I posted here, while I was researching and reading about many of the facts that I presented here.

Destroying the opposition is fun, I have a blast dismantling those stupid enough to debate me, and seeing their reactions… and watching them repeat the same patterns their predecessors made in previous debates.

It's telling when the opposition pulls a Baghdad Bob and claim some kind of victory against me. Talk about a false sense of victory.

catnipdipper: This is a joust between HerFaceChair(Sir Irrelevant), Longermonger(Sir Factual) and T9(Sir Wellmeaning). It is cheered on by CuteOldGuy(Sir Usedtobesomebody).

Let's fix that to reflect reality:

This is HerFaceChair (Sir Factual) pulverizing the opposition: LongerMonger (Sir Straw Man), thorough9 (Sir Inductive Fallacy), et al… with CuteOldGuy (Sir Diplomat) trying to defuse the situation.

Is there a prize for the most amount of space used in responses? Originally Posted by KCJoe

The fun, excitement and joy that I get in dismantling the opposition is enough for me, as far as rewards are concerned. This fun is addictive. My post lengths here are "one liners" compared to the lengths of posts I've made on other message boards in the past.

KC can you believe that I am being called a liberal. Originally Posted by dirty dog

"Same ole GOP propaganda, most of the time the rich put the money in their pocket." - dirty dog

My left leaning friends on facebook, as well as the liberals that I've debated with online, say the same thing.

"Same ole GOP propaganda, most of the time the rich put the money in their pocket." - dirty dog

My left leaning friends on facebook, as well as the liberals that I've debated with online, say the same thing. Originally Posted by herfacechair

OK seriously, I'm sitting here asking myself, "why on god's green earth would you guys keep umm....debating with this guy?" He's already proven himself in another thread in CoEd http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=222208 and we were all in agreement on what type of guy he was/is.

He fully admits to enjoying typing out pages and pages for responses:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1296726&postcou nt=65.

I'm begging you guys who I adore......for the love of god, ignore him and make it go away.

I'm sure he'll "flame" me, but who cares.....I'll be eating birthday cake and I always follow the advice of Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake."

Its just so much fun.............

KC can you believe that I am being called a liberal. Originally Posted by dirty dog

"Same ole GOP propaganda, most of the time the rich put the money in their pocket." - dirty dog

My left leaning friends on facebook, as well as the liberals that I've debated with online, say the same thing. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Originally Posted by dirty dog

"I am done with you," - dirty dog

Part of my response:

"I don't believe you." - herfacechair

Even when it comes to things that you'll do, I get it right and you get it wrong.

MsElena: OK seriously, I'm sitting here asking myself, "why on god's green earth would you guys keep umm....debating with this guy?"

Because like those that I've debated with, online, almost perpetually for almost 8 years, these clowns hope to achieve something their predecessors failed to do. But, like those that I've debated with in the past, history is going to repeat itself. I have a great time hammering these guys every time they come back.

MsElena: He's already proven himself in another thread in CoEd http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=222208

The only thing that one could objectively say is that I've proven that I'll keep hammering the opposition as long as they keep coming back.

MsElena: and we were all in agreement on what type of guy he was/is.

Get off your high horse, you don't speak for all the posters on this forum. The only people, "that are in agreement" about me are the likeminded people in the opposition. The others being in agreement with your rubbish? Laughable at best.

MsElena: He fully admits to enjoying typing out pages and pages for responses:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1296726&postcou nt=65.

I've admitted that here to…

"The fun, excitement and joy that I get in dismantling the opposition is enough for me, as far as rewards are concerned. This fun is addictive. My post lengths here are 'one liners' compared to the lengths of posts I've made on other message boards in the past." - herfacechair

"I have absolutely no intentions of letting the opposition's arguments on this thread stand unchallenged. That's a given... I'm debating your side, on this thread, ad infinitum."

But they plow on, adding new meaning to a sarcastic definition of insanity… the one about doing the same thing and expecting different results.

MsElena: I'm begging you guys who I adore......for the love of god, ignore him and make it go away.

Who do you think these guys are? Hobbyists that post in the national forum? LOL! That's the only place I've seen that tactic work, the opposition here is too stupid to implement that.

That's part of the fun of doing this. Even if you tell the opposition why you're here, that they'll meet the same fate as those that I've tangled with before, they'll continue on their own path, destined to fail. I just come back and destroy them over and over again, having a great time in the process.

MsElena: I'm sure he'll "flame" me, but who cares.....I'll be eating birthday cake and I always follow the advice of Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake."

And your stuffing your grill with cake should make the rest of us envy you? Really? Please, keep shoving the cake down your craw.

Its just so much fun............. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Again…

"I am done with you…." - dirty dog

You're either done, or you're having fun, and you want to continue. The fact that you jumped in here proves you wrong about what you'd do, as this is what I said when you claimed that you were done with me:

"I don't believe you. I say that you're going to jump in and say something, directly or indirectly, to me after I post my reply. When you do that, I'm going to talk about how you can't get it right about what you're going to do… and emphasize that even when it comes to what you do, you get it wrong and I get it right." -herfacechair

Again…

"I am done with you…." - dirty dog

You're either done, or you're having fun, and you want to continue. The fact that you jumped in here proves you wrong about what you'd do, as this is what I said when you claimed that you were done with me:

"I don't believe you. I say that you're going to jump in and say something, directly or indirectly, to me after I post my reply. When you do that, I'm going to talk about how you can't get it right about what you're going to do… and emphasize that even when it comes to what you do, you get it wrong and I get it right." -herfacechair Originally Posted by herfacechair