Moderator: Community Team
Sure he does.yang guize wrote:he doesn't really have free speech if you shout at him for opinions that you don't like
Sure, they can. In America, we call that the political process. <grin>yang guize wrote:international human rights 19: 'everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference'. that is free speech. not 'everyone can hold opinions and then be shouted at for them'









What a shock- just as the Romney campaign gets exposed for having a bunch of fake accounts on Twitter popularising him:Phatscotty wrote:Parade of Hate
Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? It's time to call a spade a spade
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.50.18-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.48.11-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.47.16-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.46.43-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.45.56-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.44.00-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-4.02.21-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-4.27.37-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-4.50.36-PM.png[img]
Most of Mitt Romney's newest Twitter followers are fake, according to an investigation of bogus social media accounts.
A pay-for-follower service most likely drove the presumptive Republican nominee's recent and dramatic spike in online followers, concluded Baccardua Labs, a digital security company.
The widely reported surge in tens of thousands of new followers for @mittromney from 21 July – which provoked commentary and suspicion – appeared to have been purchased from a dealer, it said: "We believe most of these recent followers of Romney are not from a general Twitter population but most likely from a paid Twitter follower service."
Huh, suspicious timing on this one Scotty. Looks like you got caught with your pants down.The analysis, part of a wider investigation into what the report called the underground Twitter economy, found telltale signals that about a quarter of the new followers were less than three weeks old and had not tweeted. Some 80% were less than three-months-old
So, are you going to charge that GBU is a Romney controlled fake account as well????GBU56 wrote:There's no doubt that GOD! himself has intervened and punished these bigots.
It's not his views, actually. There are others here who hold essentially the same views, or even possibly more conservative than his, who don't get the grief he does because they are consistent and not hypocritical...unlike him. He gets the grief because he is inconsistent and hypocritical.yang guize wrote:it is funny that in the 'land of the free' there is so much intolerance of phatscotty's views.
Thanks, Mr. Moderate.john9blue wrote:sure thing, mr. moderate!yang guize wrote:i actually think he argues consistently. he feels that people are free to live however they choose, whether they want to hate gays or marry other men, and he feels that majority rule (exercised through voting) should be the ultimate decider of society's values. i have not seen him sway from this.
stop your trolling this instant!
why haven't the mods banned this guy yet???
![]()
How would this rationale apply to the seven or more times you've foed and then unfoed me?Phatscotty wrote:Neo is a big boy, mr. Stalin. If he doesn't like the way I communicate, especially in a response to his consistent slander, then why does he come to my discussions? Does he really have to click on my threads? Have you ever thought about this?
In psychological circles, there's this idea that if everyone else thinks you're a fuckup, it's probably not everyone else that's wrong.Phatscotty wrote:pathetic. "hey everybody, gang up on Phatscotty!". weak
and all you can do is smear. Don't get me wrong, I take your smear as the highest form of flattery. It means you know I am right, and you can't find a way to squirm out of it or justify your position (RARELY offered) or argue to the contrary, so I must be smeared, because it's all you got.Woodruff wrote:It's not his views, actually. There are others here who hold essentially the same views, or even possibly more conservative than his, who don't get the grief he does because they are consistent and not hypocritical...unlike him. He gets the grief because he is inconsistent and hypocritical.yang guize wrote:it is funny that in the 'land of the free' there is so much intolerance of phatscotty's views.

No it isn't. There was a time, and it still occurs occasionally to this day, when I have attempted to honestly discuss issues with you. In fact, I have tried very hard to do so. But you've never been able to get past your own buffoonery of hypocricy, inconsistency and flat-out ignoring opposing views to allow it to happen.Phatscotty wrote:and all you can do is smear.Woodruff wrote:It's not his views, actually. There are others here who hold essentially the same views, or even possibly more conservative than his, who don't get the grief he does because they are consistent and not hypocritical...unlike him. He gets the grief because he is inconsistent and hypocritical.yang guize wrote:it is funny that in the 'land of the free' there is so much intolerance of phatscotty's views.
More accurately, it's all you're worth.Phatscotty wrote:Don't get me wrong, I take your smear as the highest form of flattery. It means you know I am right, and you can't find a way to squirm out of it or justify your position (RARELY offered) or argue to the contrary, so I must be smeared, because it's all you got.
So, you admit that you don't want to talk the issues with me, and just want to troll???????Woodruff wrote:No it isn't. There was a time, and it still occurs occasionally to this day, when I have attempted to honestly discuss issues with you. In fact, I have tried very hard to do so. But you've never been able to get past your own buffoonery of hypocricy, inconsistency and flat-out ignoring opposing views to allow it to happen.Phatscotty wrote:and all you can do is smear.Woodruff wrote:It's not his views, actually. There are others here who hold essentially the same views, or even possibly more conservative than his, who don't get the grief he does because they are consistent and not hypocritical...unlike him. He gets the grief because he is inconsistent and hypocritical.yang guize wrote:it is funny that in the 'land of the free' there is so much intolerance of phatscotty's views.
More accurately, it's all you're worth.Phatscotty wrote:Don't get me wrong, I take your smear as the highest form of flattery. It means you know I am right, and you can't find a way to squirm out of it or justify your position (RARELY offered) or argue to the contrary, so I must be smeared, because it's all you got.
HAHAHA! OH man, this example of Phatism is priceless.Phatscotty wrote:Parade of Hate
Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.50.18-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.48.11-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.47.16-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.46.43-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.45.56-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-3.44.00-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-4.02.21-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-4.27.37-PM.png[img]
[img]http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Screen-Shot-2012-08-01-at-4.50.36-PM.png[img]
Nope. I admit that you've become such a caricature of dishonesty that it's all the effort you deserve.Phatscotty wrote:So, you admit that you don't want to talk the issues with me, and just want to troll???????Woodruff wrote:No it isn't. There was a time, and it still occurs occasionally to this day, when I have attempted to honestly discuss issues with you. In fact, I have tried very hard to do so. But you've never been able to get past your own buffoonery of hypocricy, inconsistency and flat-out ignoring opposing views to allow it to happen.Phatscotty wrote:and all you can do is smear.Woodruff wrote:It's not his views, actually. There are others here who hold essentially the same views, or even possibly more conservative than his, who don't get the grief he does because they are consistent and not hypocritical...unlike him. He gets the grief because he is inconsistent and hypocritical.yang guize wrote:it is funny that in the 'land of the free' there is so much intolerance of phatscotty's views.
More accurately, it's all you're worth.Phatscotty wrote:Don't get me wrong, I take your smear as the highest form of flattery. It means you know I am right, and you can't find a way to squirm out of it or justify your position (RARELY offered) or argue to the contrary, so I must be smeared, because it's all you got.
I already answered it, hypocrite. See, you keep doing this...you keep demanding that others answer your questions, yet you either completely ignore our own questions (while loudly making your demands) or you thoroughly ignore the answers we do give you. That's just another fine example of exactly what I'm speaking of above.Phatscotty wrote:well, here is me, trying to honestly discuss and issue with you.... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p3852968 let's see how you handle that, that is, if you are not a hypocrite....
spoken like a true dick. You could try minding your own business? I guess a dick wouldn't thoughBigBallinStalin wrote:PS, you're either being stupid or you're a clever troll. This one of the ultimate mysteries on CC.
I must admit that I don't know the answer, but what is certain is that people are tired of you being a dick. Please stop being a dick, PS.
Well, Do you?BigBallinStalin wrote:HAHAHA! OH man, this example of Phatism is priceless.Phatscotty wrote:Parade of Hate
Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade
I recall Neoteny stating how PS posts the most extreme idiots of phatsco's disliked position, and then runs with it to justify his hilarious attempt to hold a discussion:
"Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade"
Haha, wow.
First, an important question:Phatscotty wrote:Well, Do you?BigBallinStalin wrote:HAHAHA! OH man, this example of Phatism is priceless.Phatscotty wrote:Parade of Hate
Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERP
I recall Neoteny stating how PS posts the most extreme idiots of phatsco's disliked position, and then runs with it to justify his hilarious attempt to hold a discussion:
"Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade"
Haha, wow.
wtf?dodgism does not beat Phatism
Before that, we need to address the content of your argument/position. From there, we can proceed in a reasonable fashion.Phatscotty wrote:Well, I hope I do not HAVE to agree with you, because I disagree. I do not have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions. I am always reasonable, and I acknowledge other points from time to time.
If you want to put up some examples, I will address them.
and we are already clear that from a pro-gay marriage position, every religious person is a bigot....starting....NOW!!!!BigBallinStalin wrote:Before that, we need to address the content of your argument/position. From there, we can proceed in a reasonable fashion.Phatscotty wrote:Well, I hope I do not HAVE to agree with you, because I disagree. I do not have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions. I am always reasonable, and I acknowledge other points from time to time.
If you want to put up some examples, I will address them.
(1) So you want to compare Hate/Bigotry between the pro-gay marriage crowd and the pro-Chick-Fil-A/anti-gay marriage (i.e. bigots--in a bad way) crowd?
With some modification to my qualifiers, this comparison is basically your goal--as expressed through your three questions above the pictures.
(2) You list some examples of some tweets by about 10 people, who are assumed to be the of pro-gay marriage crowd (it is possible that they're fake accounts). Anyway, do you think this sample is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd?
(2a) If yes, please argue why it is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd.
(Then please realize that you're exhibiting sample bias, which in turn means that your position on the entire gay marriage crowd would be false. In other words, your poor evidence would fail to support what you're insinuating with your question: "Who are the real haters?" --Apparently, only a few people. Big deal, amirite?).
(But the most accurate answer to that question would be the neo-Nazis, or the Top 10 Player Haters Hall of Fame. It's a toss-up between those two groups).
(2b) If no, then what's the point? About ten people of a group are being mean? Since that's true for almost all groups, then we can reasonably reject/ignore your post. <shrugs>
Next, we'll compare the general positions of each group, and see which one is bigoted--in a bad way. Wait, we already did that here, and the conclusion so far is that the anti-gay marriage crowd, who base their reasoning on Christianity, are bigoted in a bad way. Feel free to overcome the main obstacles here. Until then, they're reasonably deemed as bigoted--in a bad way.
Since you failed to acknowledge or address the first question, then I'll assume that you agree with its presentation of your goal. And, you ignored the question for #2b, so that's strike one and two.Phatscotty wrote:and we are already clear that from a pro-gay marriage position, every religious person is a bigot....starting....NOW!!!!BigBallinStalin wrote:Before that, we need to address the content of your argument/position. From there, we can proceed in a reasonable fashion.Phatscotty wrote:Well, I hope I do not HAVE to agree with you, because I disagree. I do not have a history of ignoring other people's pertinent questions. I am always reasonable, and I acknowledge other points from time to time.
If you want to put up some examples, I will address them.
(1) So you want to compare Hate/Bigotry between the pro-gay marriage crowd and the pro-Chick-Fil-A/anti-gay marriage (i.e. bigots--in a bad way) crowd?
With some modification to my qualifiers, this comparison is basically your goal--as expressed through your three questions above the pictures.
(2) You list some examples of some tweets by about 10 people, who are assumed to be the of pro-gay marriage crowd (it is possible that they're fake accounts). Anyway, do you think this sample is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd?
(2a) If yes, please argue why it is representative of the entire gay marriage crowd.
(Then please realize that you're exhibiting sample bias, which in turn means that your position on the entire gay marriage crowd would be false. In other words, your poor evidence would fail to support what you're insinuating with your question: "Who are the real haters?" --Apparently, only a few people. Big deal, amirite?).
(But the most accurate answer to that question would be the neo-Nazis, or the Top 10 Player Haters Hall of Fame. It's a toss-up between those two groups).
(2b) If no, then what's the point? About ten people of a group are being mean? Since that's true for almost all groups, then we can reasonably reject/ignore your post. <shrugs>
Next, we'll compare the general positions of each group, and see which one is bigoted--in a bad way. Wait, we already did that here, and the conclusion so far is that the anti-gay marriage crowd, who base their reasoning on Christianity, are bigoted in a bad way. Feel free to overcome the main obstacles here. Until then, they're reasonably deemed as bigoted--in a bad way.
(C) Since you admit that the evidence which you provided is insufficient--in regard to your questions, then what was the purpose of your questions?Phatscotty wrote:My answer to your question is no, and I would add "Of course not!" PFF wtf? who the hell thinks that way? That because someone shows an example, someone else assumes they are calling out every single person on the planet, and not just the 10 people I demonstrated as bigots, and in today's confusion, "real bigots".
I think the thing that most people would most ignore would be your assertion that because I show 10 examples I am talking about the views of an entire population. That's like the dumbest thing ever, and I feel shame for even responding to such stupidity.
[insert pics]PhatScotty wrote:Do you see anyone at Chik-Fil-A saying anything remotely close to this? Who are the real haters? It's time to call a spade a spade
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.