User talk:RobSmith

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Hypocrisy[edit]

Wow - are you seriously complaining about hypocrisy? Acei9 00:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yah, why? In dealing with leftists, you kinda get jaded and immune to it after awhile. You only speak up when it would seem hypocritical to remain silent. nobs piss in my ear 01:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Complaining about hypocrisy....on Conservapedia...that's next level cognitive dissonance. Acei9 01:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
"cognitive dissonance." Where'd you buy that word, Family Dollar? nobs piss in my ear 01:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It's actually two words, Rob. Acei9 01:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so two 50 cent words would still sell for $2.50 plus tax at Family Dollar. Why do Americans feel they're getting screwed? Do we have to await the outcome of Trump-Xi trade talks to see if I buy two 50 cent words made in China at Family Dollar am I going to get value for my money? or are we all supposed to go on living like brain dead Democrats who don't know the value (or cost for that matter) of anything? nobs piss in my ear 02:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is more evidence that Nobs does not bother to read RW even though he thought he was qualified to be on the board and be a moderator. Read it Nobs, you might learn something: cognitive dissonance. Bongolian (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I spend my time either educating myself or contributing to the betterment of society. My participation here is an attempt at leading by example. nobs piss in my ear 03:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
What in the holy fuck are you even talking about Rob. BTW - you haven't learned shit and if your attempts at bettering society are evidenced by your CP contributions society would be better off if you stopped. But anyway - more to the point: there has never been a more vastly impressive edifice to hypocrisy than CP. Acei9 03:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Funny you mention people feeling like they're being screwed, and why. Here's my particular why; Orange Boy is sabotaging the factory in which I work. We import raw materials from a lot of places, China included, run full fabrication in-house, then sell the finished product globally; one of our biggest customers is China. (FYI I design fluid control and monitoring systems, which are primarily used for industrial and municipal water supplies. 300,000 of my systems are in use around the world.) So at present, we are being punished by this administration through mindless 25% tariffs on many key parts. Then we're slammed on the other side when the completed systems are hit by reciprocal tariffs going out to China. We were on track to hit $50M in sales this year until this needless, pointless bullshit started. You can lead by example here by thinking to yourself, "What if Obama had done this?", realize you would have condemned him soundly for this kind of behavior, and acknowledge that Trump has no idea how macroeconomics or an economy operates - you would stay consistent in your beliefs. Instead you will come up with a convoluted explanation and hold to the idea that if Obama had done this, it would be 'picking winners and losers in the economy' but that when Trump does it, it's only his keen wonderful amazing flawless insight that the rest of us plebs are blind to, which then marks you for the moral contortionist we all know you to be. And then you do it again ten seconds later; it's fucking breathtaking to watch. Semipenultimate (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Bullshit. You know damn well, since you're so macroeconomically sophisticated, the tariffs mean higher wages for you no matter what your volume of sales. Spare me all the whataboutism bullshit. And you can't even get that right. Obama has jackshit to do with China trade; that's Papa Bush, Clinton, and even Reagan's baby. nobs piss in my ear 06:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Let's even take it a step farther, since you're so macroeconomically sophisticated: you know damn well once the Chinese obtain the technical skills you racked up $200,000 in student debt to obtain, the Chinese will hire somebody in the Chinese gulag for $1.95 an hour to do what you do and cut out $50 million in trade with your factory. Trump provides you with job security in a limited, and almost monopolistic market where you can rape fellow citizens for higher wages at will, rather than be at the mercy of Chinese competition. nobs piss in my ear
Presumptions about my educational costs aside, my question about Obama was a theoretical, go back and actually read it. Thank you for pointing out that business doesn't care about nationalism or any of that flowery bullshit; business is about money, and making as much of it as possible, without regard to human cost. That Chinese slave is putting money into the pockets of American businessmen but not American workers. This is why we have to compel businesses to pay a living wage, provide healthcare, and operate in legal and ethical ways, otherwise they'd commit all manner of financial crimes out in the open. There are more sophisticated ways to do this than announcing huge blanket one-size-fits-all tariffs. However, glad to see we're finally in agreement that capitalist greed must be constrained by government action! Semipenultimate (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
What? That makes no sense, free capitalism cannot function with such tariffs from Trump. Adam Smith himself would agree. Doublethink (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
What make no sense? Trade barriers will return the situation to like it was when U.S. automakers made $36 an hour and Japanese car manufacturers made $16, and Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep allowing U.S. workers to fuck their fellow citizens. Don't give me this Reaganesque bullshit now. nobs piss in my ear 07:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hahaha, no trade barriers will make producers leave see?. Tarrifs were outdated by Adam Smith's time, this has nothing to do with Regan. Do you not know who Smith is? Doublethink (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Trade barriers cannot unmake the container ship revolution, the establishment of modernized manufacturing bases outside the US, nor the fact that we're no longer the only major power to not be utterly destroyed by a world war. The conditions of past success cannot be recreated. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Douhlethink: What kinda drugs are you on? Tariffs supported the entire US federal government from 1789 until passage of the income tax in 1916.
@Ikanread: That sounds like something Michelle Bachmann, the Ocasio-Cortez of her day, would say. Why, that great defender of women's rights, Sen. Al Franken, would never have been elected had Bachmann not referred to the Smoot-Hawley trade bill as 'Hoot Smalley' to justify the position of destroying American jobs with free trade. nobs piss in my ear 18:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they did and nobody liked them. Remember how well the embargo went for Jefferson? Doublethink (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
So what exactly is meant by free trade? China gets to export shit duty-free, destroying American jobs, while US exports are looted as soon as they're off-loaded from the ships? You've seen the results of such a Reaganesque and Thatcheresque policy - destruction of whole communities and the election of Donald Trump to reverse it. nobs piss in my ear 20:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
20% right as usual Morty Doublethink (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Doublethink: If nobody liked tariffs under Jefferson around 1805, then explain why they remained at very high levels until about 1945? --Sovereigntist (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The Americans needed money, also it was not effective. Doublethink (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
So, Thatcher was right when she threw 400,000 coal miners out of work and opened the UK up to free trade. Interesting. nobs piss in my ear 10:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
That is a complete non sequitur, I never advocated violence against striking workers. I merely said that tariffs are bad. Also where did you get the 400,000 number and she did't throw them out, Thatcher just broke upthe strike. 20% right as usual Morty Doublethink (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────As in most macroeconomic discussions, some people can't see the forest from the trees. I'll try to summarize as briefly as possible.

It was something like 150,000 workers, representing families and communities of about 400,000 who lost their government-protected jobs. Coal miners received above global market wages, something like $25 an hour, and worked fulltime year round. This created a global surplus, driving the global price of coal, per ton, down. By contrast, free market West Virginia coal miners made $15 an hour and endured frequent layoffs and work stoppages due to global surpluses which drive prices down.

IOW, UK coal production was subsidized by the UK Treasury, meaning UK coal was sold at a loss. If a ton of UK coal cost the Treasury $50 to produce, it only sold for $30 on the open markets. These were the conditions that existed from about 1945 to 1986.

Now the anti-Thatcherites and Trump critics are arguing against government protection of workers, and for open, free global markets. Do you see the contradiction in their position? nobs piss in my ear 02:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a democrat I'm a Libertarian, did you not get that with my repeated references to free markets and my hatred of taxes. Doublethink (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
No, I didn't. Not knowing anything about free markets, Adam Smith, or taxes made me doubt you being a Libertarian. Being an economic illiterate made me think you're Democrat.
And being triggered by Thatcherism to automatically think of worker violence instead of the underlying free market cause she advocated was a dead give away. Whatsmore, recently it was reported the UK converted over completely to nuclear power and stopped burning coal anywhere in the UK. So who really was the progressive visionary? and what happened to the anti-nuke environmentalists of the 1980s who wanted to continue burning coal? Oh, I know I know, they quietly are working off their nuclear powered electronic devices, advocating for China to continue building coal plants in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Africa while claiming China is the global leader in fighting carbon emissions. nobs piss in my ear 06:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
You are so off topic, when did we even start arguing about carbon emissions? How was I triggered by Thatcherism? Also, I'm economically illiterate? Coming from the person who doesn't understand macroeconomics or the damages of mercantilism? Doublethink (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Me off topic? It's obvious you've never read Adam Smith. You read what some commie lib (of which there are many) claims Adam Smith said. Adam Smith laid down few hard and fast rules. Smith discusses pros and cons on many subjects, such as tariffs. But commie libs don't believe in tradeoffs, they look for ideological purity. So you think the negative aspects of tariffs that Adam Smith discussed is some hard and fast dictum cause your commie lib teachers ignored half of what Smith wrote. As to Thatcherism, go back^^^^. I was discussing the macroeconomics of free trade - the terms "Thatcher" and "coal" triggered a response of "worker violence" from you, which has nothing to do with the global macroeconomic price of a ton of coal in 1986. You sound like a brainless commie lib Democrat. nobs piss in my ear 17:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
And BTW, what are carbon emissions, if not a macroeconomic argument? If not, what is there to worry about? nobs piss in my ear 18:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
HA! Yes I am a commie lib that is arguing for lower taxes and less government control. Do you even know what Communism is? Or is it just Communism = Satan? Tabula Rasa (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
A communist who believes in private property, Intetesting. I 'spose you believe in worker rights, too, like giving them a cigarette before you shoot them in the gulag. nobs piss in my ear 08:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Non sequitur. I just pointed out that if you think that I'm a communist when I am for lowering taxes and not having the government control things you don't know what a communist is. Tabula Rasa (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Huh? Wake up and smell the coffee. It's going to be a European Spring, with the Right-wing joining the 99% percent against the 1% EU bureaucratic elitists, and the Social Justice Warrior's demonstrating against the carbon tax and for national soveignty. The rich can longer keep us down. Rise up! Rise up for social justice against the globalist human rights abusers! nobs piss in my ear 22:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That is still a non sequitur. Tabula Rasa (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You can't just call me a commie and not justify it. Tabula Rasa (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Wall[edit]

Hey Rob, why is there a fundraising page for the Border Wall? I thought Mexico was paying for it? Acei9 21:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I dunno; a long-term real estate investor could probably explain it better, but I'll try.
It takes money to make money. The one-time infrastructure cost is relatively a fixed cost, but the perpetual maintainance cost is open-ended (both in material costs and personnel). It is built to generate revenue, either directly to collect custom duties, or indirectly to secure the operation of businesses inside the wall. So an offset of the perpetual maintainance cost, and gradual re-imbursement of the original building cost is needed. To get Mexico to "pay for the wall," I suspect could take several shapes : (1) a tax on money transfers from Mexicans working and residing in the US back home to Mexico. This would likely be the biggest source. (2) Import duties on certain items from Mexico not protected by the USMCA, of which there's not many. (3) Reduced payments to Mexico for the drug war transfered to wall maintainance. (4) Export duties on marijuana. In recent years. the situation has reversed. Because of drug legalization in the US, and improvements in potency, quantity and quality, Mexico has become a net importer of US grown marijuana.
I'm just shooting from the hip, but no one really expects a self-made billionaire to lay his plans on the table for a new revenue generating project. nobs piss in my ear 22:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
So why hasn't any of the above been enacted to pay for this wall instead of asking congress for the funding? Acei9 01:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Well duh, i outlined reimbursement funding above. It requires an initial outlay by Congress. But it's contingent on (a) immigration reform to address workers who send money to Mexico, and (b) tax reform to address sending money to Mexico. As you well know, Congress is composed of thick-headed numbskull idiots of both parties. And there's opposition to all three, the wall, immigration reform, and laying taxes on money transfers from the United States. So it requires a national consensus (here's where the GOP. Trump, and Democrats differ: we'd never dream of ramming such an ambitious project down the throats of the country without a national consensus, unlike the worthless cocksucking human rights violating communist-killer totalitarian assholes who did that to us with Obamacare). nobs piss in my ear 02:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Yet Trump hasn't even put any of the ideas you mention forward. In fact he hasn't put any ideas forward except "give me 5 billion" and that was never going to fly. Weird he hasn't put forward any proposal and keeps lying about how the wall has begun construction which even supporters like Ann Coulter has called out as bullshit.
worthless cocksucking human rights violating communist-killer totalitarian assholes who did that to us with Obamacare Wow...which human rights did you lose Rob? Acei9 03:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Communism and assorted shit[edit]

My right to choice. If I want to die of a pre-existing condition, even in a state that allows assisted suicide, the communist whores wanna soak me for insurance premiums on the way out. It's like a goddam toll booth on the off ramp. nobs piss in my ear 03:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Not sure that is a human right there, Rob. But let me ask you something Rob, you don't have to answer but what do you pay for your medical insurance? And do you think a properly functioning society should put people in the position where they face bankruptcy or death? Is that the choice you mean? Acei9 03:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm a senior. I leech off the ignorant youth. And I don't think a properly functioning society should commit its children and grandchildren to a slave system, such as I've experienced in my life, where old people take advantage of ignorant youth who were born into a slave system and never had the chance to vote for it. nobs piss in my ear 06:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hypocrite. Not to mention, we also will be seniors eventually. The cycle continues.Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 09:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
What did Jesus mean when he said, "If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free." - Mk 7:11-12? Lemme translate: Because the gubmint says, "We'll take the money out of your paycheck and give to your parents, you are absolved of your responsibility. It is Corban, a gift." nobs piss in my ear 11:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

well firstly you contradicted yourself, secondly when you claim Obama or any of his policies were communist what I hear you saying is “I don’t know what words mean and finally - have you been drinking because your last comment was more confused than most. How about actually addressing what I asked you? You know I live in a country with state health care and many state programs funded through taxation yet have a business freedom index, and higher freedoms in general than the US. Amazing. Acei9

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Contradicted? What? Huh? Where? I get Medicare. I never voted for the goddam shit. I paid for the goddam shit my whole life, and I don't use it. If I didn't have to pay for old people's shit during my working career, I would have had money to buy my own health insurance and prepare for my own retirement. But my grandparents sold me into Marxist slavery in 1937 with the Social Security Act and in 1962 with the Medicare Act. I was never consulted. I was informed when I entered the workforce, "Tuff, kid, too bad. You're too young and stupid to understand. Shut up and get to work to support us, who voted for this Marxist slave system." Now 70 million Millennials bitch about a fucked world with 68 million babyboomers who control Congress, who they have to support for another 30 years while they can't afford to have children and buy houses. At the same time they want Welfare for All, with nobody working and everybody getting a check. I had to work 40 years to get my free bowl gruel, they want it while still living in their parents basement. And that's called fairness. On top of that, they want forced retirement cause they blame babyboomers for fucking up the world. Fine. I'll give up the fucked up world I inherited when you pry it from my cold dead fingers. nobs piss in my ear 09:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesus fuck man. If I met you at a party I'd back away slowly. Almost incoherent. I don't even know where to start let alone what point you are making. Acei9 10:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Just observations on modern America. Communist-killers have taken over the Democrat party. What do you expect? nobs piss in my ear 10:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Who are these communists? And more to the point - how do you feel about your president facing multiple lawsuits while lying to your face about his wall? Acei9 20:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
And let’s not forget having to shut down his foundation due to a ‘shocking amount of illegality’. He’s a crook, Rob. Acei9 21:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As the wheels fall off[edit]

It'll never happen. Rob's an old man, he's had all that time to grow up, and hasn't. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 00:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Don Juan I'm persistent, stubborn and patent, and if I have to hold him down by the hair until he screams uncle I will. His parents should have taught him this, his schoolteachers should have taught him this, and so it appears that I must teach him this lesson. Don't be an ass towards others, some of them may just bite back. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Rob, this is really simple. All you have to do is type up an apology to me Ace, and Don, one without any passive-aggressive barbs, and I stop. That's it, nothing else. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
It would be cute if I knew what you're talking about. What? Has there been some changes in RW community standards I don't know about? nobs piss in my ear 00:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Rob's pissant behavior really isn't anything worth making a fuss over. He's an ass, plain and simple. We have plenty of asses on RW, I could conceivably be counted as one of them if this account of mine is anything to go by. I come from the rough-and-tumble shit hole that is Usenet, and it is still a shithole to this day, contrary to popular belief Usenet isn't dead at all, quite the opposite in fact, and the shit I experience there on a daily basis makes the fucks here at RW seem like angels compared to twats such as myself, Alan Kleinman, Peter Nyikos, JTEM, and a horde of other trolls. Besides, people like Rob provide us something to laugh at. I understand that other people may have different sensitivities, I suffer from PTSD, anxiety, autism and several other neurological illnesses, I know what it's like to be triggered, it ain't pleasant, but dealing with all the vermin in my life, being exposed to such weeds on a daily basis, both online and IRL, has provided me some thick skin, I've seen the worst humanity has to offer, and Rob just doesn't cut it. It's not worth getting angry over, you'll save yourself a lot of headaches along the way by going with the flow and not letting the trolls get to you. Trust me, I speak from experience, both as a victim of trolls and as a relatively infamous troll myself, here's a quick google search of my prior activities as a troll prior to my atonement and you'll see what I mean. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 00:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@Don JuanIt's less that I'm offended (I've had people yell death threats to my face, this shit is nothing), and more that I'm tired of Rob talking crap without someone smacking him upside the head and telling him not to piss on the carpet. Basically it's annoying and childish, and I'm somewhat tired of it, so I'm stopping it. It's that simple. Rob, meet my demands and I back down. Like I just told Don, it's that simple. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
P.S. Don't get hung up on what people call themselves or what symbols they wear, those things are as fleeting as the morning dew. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
WTF R U talking about? Examine the thread. Not once did address you personally, not until you starting having a hissy fit. Proof you do not know what ad hominem means. If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong. nobs piss in my ear 07:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
"@Ace McWicked@Don Juan It probably doesn't matter anyway, given that the market is probably about to tank (again). Without that economic strength the war effort would be hindered somewhat. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
   (ec) What? Are you one of those Democrat warmongers, too? Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive!. ISIS is dead and GM is dead! Where's the wp:AUMF when Obama violated the War Powers Act to put the troops there in the first place? nobs piss in my ear 21:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
           A raging hypocrite. Acei9 21:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
               It could be argued that all of the wars conducted by us since WWII were unconstitutional, because none of them received a formal declaration of war by Congress. — Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 21:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
                   Well lemme 'splain briefly. According to the Congressional Resesrch Servive, Congress doesn't declare war anymore basically for two reasons: (1) declaration of a nation emergency like that automatically gives a bunch of federal agencies automatic, unlimited spending authority now that survival is at stake and their backs are against the wall. Congress looses power over the budget which goes completely out of control. (2) Insurance policies go null and void cause they all have "act of war" exclusions, and people get wiped out. nobs piss in my ear 21:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
                       Gee, it's almost as if those people have incentive to break the law... But they would never do that! Would they? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
                           (ec) And you will notice in the above WP link the most recent AUMF was limited in scope (airstrikes) and for use against the Syrian regime, not ISIS. The troops are there not to kill ISIS, but to prevent our Turkish allies from killing our Kurdish allies. Some alliance, huh? Obama violated the War Powers Act when he attacked Libya and was never given an AUMF when he put boots on the ground in Syria. 
                           Turn off your TV sets and stop listening to your communist hate-mongers. nobs piss in my ear 21:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
                               You assumptions about me and my info sources is... Cute... Unlike you and yours, I don't simply take info at face value, I vet it. When any politician makes a claim I am by default wary of it. So I dig up info, I double and triple check sources, and I dig up as much as possible. Partisan hacks like you can't say the same, it's half of why you're partisan to begin with. You want to be spoonfed your news, you want to be spoonfed your thoughts, and you want your bias reinforced. That is the difference between us. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC) "
My cynical commentary is nonpartisan. Apologize and I back down. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Not to demean your reading comprehension but, the phrases "turn YOUR TV sets" and "YOUR hatemongers" addresses a collective YOU (meaning a crowd), and "hatemongers" refers to people such as Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, the Washington Press Corps, and a host of other critics.

And please, let's not go into the psychopathology of how YOU (individually, personally) can mistake a reference to a collective group of tens of thousands of Trump critics to an ad hominem attack on yourself.

If there was a mistake or misunderstanding on either of our parts, I apologise. nobs piss in my ear 19:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Close enough. I accept. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Once upon a time[edit]

Once upon a time there was the Robrail, where we could move his demented shitehawkery to. It was deleted, though, as a "personal attack" although since it was mostly just his own words, I don't see how that works. Now instead the senile wankpuffin can smear his turds wherever he wants. Avida Dollarsher again 14:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a lot has changed over the years, especially among RW's userbase demographics. Man, doesn't time fly? For the record, I`m not sure if you've noticed because I've been pretty lowkey until recently, my handle here was for a while "Palaeonictis," joined November of 2014, so while I haven't been here as long as you or Ace have, I've been here long enough to see RW undergo many changes. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 15:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Pissgate[edit]

I pissed in your ear, as per your requesto.[1] Bongolian (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have one criticism: Nowhere have I implied Soros was a Nazi sympathizer. That Soros was a Nazi collaborator is indisputable. Of coarse to a moral relativist there probably isn't such distinction. nobs piss in my ear 20:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
One cannot collaborate without being a sympathizer. One can be forced to do something by threat of death or otherwise but that's not collaboration. Bongolian (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Collaboration is an action, sympathy is a state of mind. nobs piss in my ear
So you are saying that Soros was forced to help the nazis. So? I mean plenty of holocaust (please tell me you aren't a holocaust denier) survivors shoveled bodies into the ovens or built infrastructure while in the camps. Tabula Rasa (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
So, if I put a gun in your hand, and put a gun to your head, and order you to shoot a third party, does that absolve you of guilt?
Truth be told. I have great compassion for George Soros, cause I know he is saddled with much guilt. nobs piss in my ear 06:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, yes it absolves you of guilt. In the law it's called an action "under duress" . In law you aren't guilty and in my book you don't have any guilt. Tabula Rasa (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, you think so? If I get rear-ended at a stop light, and it causes me to rear-end the car in front of me, am I absolved of liability? Hell, it was an accident, I didn't even have a choice in the matter.nobs piss in my ear 03:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, yes "under duress" remember? Tabula Rasa (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't think that'll hold in a court of law, or in an insurance claim. You'll be found at least 10% at fault just for being there. nobs piss in my ear 05:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
At this point what you think means very little to me. You never research your points and just call me a commie lib. I am still waiting for a response to that by the way.--Tabula Rasa (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wow. Thanks. "a person who agrees to a contract under physical duress may avoid the contract, even if the duress was not the main reason for agreeing to the bargain." Couldn't come up with a better point to prove the illegality of Obamacare and the individual mandate (a $600 fine for not purchasing a health insurance contract is "physical duress" if a laborers source of income is labor). I'll ignore the fact that both premises (the gun and the auto) had nothing to do with contract law. nobs piss in my ear 07:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Duress under contract law is not the same as duress in a criminal case. Patty Hearst argued duress, and still got 35 years for bankrobbery. nobs piss in my ear 07:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you even see the other few links. Just because a few cases were lost doesn't mean the defense is inaccurate. Do you even understand what a legal defense is? It's a defense that is common in legal courts not one that works 100% or even a majority of the time. (Seeing as most cases end in conviction). Also why did you bring Obama into this. Non Sequitur Tabula Rasa (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
If I put a gun to your head, that is not a contract. If you get rear-ended, that is not a contract. Duress is as an action to set aside a contract, like lack of consideration, lack of capacity, "unclear hands", ultra vires, etc., and is not a criminal defense.
In the case of Patty Hearst, the facts were similiar to what I premised. She wss raped. She was threatened with death. She was locked in a closet and starved. She argued that she was brainwashed and acted under duress. The court sentenced her to 35 years for a voluntary action. What's George Soros' excuse? That he willingly entered into a contract with the Nazi's?nobs piss in my ear 09:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
One problem with that, there was a doubt that she was raped, tortured, ect. With Soros, he is jewish they were NAZIS. Commie Lib (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
In the Hearst case, the court found she willingly cooperated. In the Soros instance, he confessed on 60 minutes that he willingly cooperated. Unlike Hearst, Soros never claimed he personally was threatened with death. nobs piss in my ear 10:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
if you areb jew in nazi germany you are by default threatened with death. not 'personally' threatened, as no one said directly gto his that were going to kill specifically. no he was hiding in plan sight. discovery meant death. and he was 14 when the war ended. whatever point your trying to make here, this is fucking idiotic. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's stop here and look closer: according to WP,

At the time of her arrest, Patty Hearst weighed only 87 pounds (40 kg) and was described by Dr. Margaret Singer in October 1975 as "a low-IQ, low-affect zombie".[41] Shortly after her arrest, there were some clear signs of trauma: her IQ was measured as 112, whereas it had previously been 130; there were huge gaps in her memory regarding her pre-Tania life; she was smoking heavily and had nightmares.[42] Without a mental illness or defect, a person was held fully responsible for any criminal action not done under duress, defined as a clear and present threat of death or serious injury.[43][44] Securing an acquittal on the basis of brainwashing would be completely unprecedented.[45][46]

(This defense wouldn't have done "Songbird" McCain any good, either). The court found Hearst willingly entered into an agreement with her captors.

In Soros case, he likewise entered into an agreement (or contract) with the Nazi's. 10,000 people were murdered daily for a period of four months, for which he was rewarded, or paid, by his own admission. Accepting payment in a contract is not evidence of duress.

His only defense, under American law, would be lack of capacity (age) to enter into a contract. That still does not mean he did not do what he did. nobs piss in my ear 11:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

i cant be arsed with this utter bullshit.

his defense is that he didnt do any it. your reading of law fails even before your twisting of it when its all based on lies in the first place. its complete bullshit. you know it is. patty hearst is irrelevant to soros. mccain is irrelevent. this is just despicable. you cannot hang the murders of thousands and thousands of jews on a 14 year old jewish boy who played no part in it. nor did he play any part in confiscation of jewish property. nor did he collaborate in any way. im sure theres plenty of stuff you can pin on soros. stuff hes actually done. it just wont involve nazis. instead you insist on regurgitating lies. you are liar. have some fucking integrity.

there must people on the right, conservatives of various stripes who have something valid to say. i dont know what that would be because the only right wing folk who make here all unvarnished fucknuts, incapable of even the most basic decency. there is no win here. it fucks us all over. get a fucking grip man. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Watch the 60 Minutes interview. Anyone who has read even just a modicum of Holocaust literature - the accounts of eyewitnesses - knows exactly what's going on. And I've spent years reading most of it. Soros is the only survivor in his situation, and he admits to being paid. What? You think Nazi's, after they deported Jews, let anyone ransack houses? You're in denial. Soros fingered Jews for the Nazis. Unlike Paris or Warsaw, Budapest was never under occupation. Jews in Budapest were never required to wear the Yellow star, so the Nazis needed the collaboration of locals to identify who the Jews were. Soros was ideal, cause he was a member of the community. He was rewarded for his efforts. He puts the best spin on it in the 60 Minutes interview. These are the fundamental facts you have to work with. nobs piss in my ear 18:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Shut the fuck up, you lying sack of shit. The Soros collaboration myth has been comprehensively debunked, and you fucking know it. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Watch the 60 Minutes interview. He looted houses. He was paid. nobs piss in my ear 05:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Read the Snopes page, you fucking antisemitic conspiracy monger.[2] Bongolian (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Watch the fucking interview, you punk-ass dipshit. nobs piss in my ear 05:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────1) Soros was a minor at the time 2) Soros was under imminent threat of death. According to Snopes:[3]

Yet the simple truth is that George Soros neither said nor did anything resembling what he has been accused of. In no sense was Soros, who turned 14 years old not long after the Germans occupied Hungary in 1944, a “Nazi collaborator.” At no time did he confiscate (or help confiscate) the property of Jews, “identify Jews to the Nazis,” or help “round up” people targeted for deportation or extermination by the Germans (to answer just a few of the accusations leveled against him). And although Soros did attest during the infamous 60 Minutes interview that he regrets nothing about the time of German occupation, he also said it is precisely because he didn’t do any of the things attributed to him that his conscience is clear.

Fuck you, you racist PoS. Bongolian (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like Snopes is wrong here. In the interview, Soros says he felt no guilt because the property was being taking away either way regardless of his actions and compared it to his actions in the speculative market. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Give me the exact quote and time in the interview that you're referring to. I can't read your mind. Bongolian (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
It's at 8:30 in the YouTube vid Rob linked. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
if only you could have managed just a few seconds later where he states he was merely a spectator. its as if one ambiguous statement taken free from context is proof of fuck all. he says a few times how he had no role in confiscating property. its pretty fucking clear. are you people fucking stupid? did you think we would not look any further? it all hinges on that one statement, only ambiguous out of context, its complete arse water of the worse kind. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It's part of the analogy he was making. Either way, I didn't say he was more than a spectator. But I found it odd how Snopes mischaracterized the explanation Soros gave in the interview. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
(A) It is only the testimony of one witness. (B) The subject is admiting to cooperation, he and his guardian, with the Gestspo. (C) The Gestapo did not allow "spectators." nobs piss in my ear 01:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
As to Snopes, it's not odd at all. Snopes is banking on you take their word for it and not watching the video. nobs piss in my ear 02:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I watched the video and saw the context. Nobs, you're one of the most fucked-up people I've ever personally encountered. You are a sick human being. Here is a 14-year old Jewish boy whose life depends upon his Christian guardian. He did not have the capability to himself seize property, but he was brought to accompany his adult guardian while the guardian seized the property of Jews. Bongolian (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I find it endlessly funny Nobs is trying to argue that living in Nazi Germany as a Jew wouldn't count as under duress. Commie Lib (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Bongolian I've seen worse than Rob, not by much, but still verifiably worse. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The Hungarian government did not know who the Jews were. The Nazis did not know who the Jews were. Soros guardian did not know who the Jews were. Soros knew who members of the Jewish community were. Hungarian Jews were not segregated into ghettos as they were in Warsaw, Paris, Rotterdam and eleswhere. Hungarian Jews were not mandated to wear the Star of David by the Hungarian government. Now, explain the rapid deportation of 430,000 Hungarian Jews in four months and why Soros was allowed to be a "spectator" of Nazi crimes? And why Soros was compensated with food and belongings from the victims homes? nobs piss in my ear 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself: shut the fuck up, you lying sack of shit. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting article; now answer the specific question: How were the Nazis able to segregate 430,000 Hungarian Jews between June and October 1944? In the case of Poland, there was nearly two years preparation time between September 1939 and July 1941 when Auschwitz extermination operations began. Paris was over a year from June 1940 to July 1941. As the 1962 Eichmann trial reveals, in the case of Budapest it was only because of cooperation with local Jews. Soros made the mistake between 1945 and 1962 of going on record and saying too much how he survived Eichmann's deportations, which he tries to explain away in the 60 Minutes interview of the 1990s. nobs piss in my ear 23:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You're a turd in the gene pool, Smith, and lazy to boot:

Long before that fateful spring of 1944, Hungarian leader Miklós Horthy​ had fostered anti-Semitic fervor in his country. When he first took power in 1920, the country’s Numerus Clausus law, which put a quota on the number of Jewish students allowed to attend universities, went into effect, along with the White Terror, a military crackdown targeting at Jews and other counterrevolutionaries. In the build-up to World War II, a series of anti-Jewish laws starting in 1938 were also responsible for othering Hungarian Jews.

But the alliance Hungary struck with the Axis Powers in 1940 at first kept the majority of Hungary’s Jews safe from Nazi Germany. More than 20,000 Jews that Hungarian authorities designated as “foreign nationals” were sent in 1941 to German-occupied Ukraine, with full knowledge of the fate that would await them upon their arrival. The next year, the Hungarian military and citizen forces took part in the Novi Sad massacre in northern Serbia where more than 1,000 people, mostly Jews, were killed. And approximately 40,000 Jewish men conscripted into forced labor battalions died of exposure, enemy fire or mass executions during Hungary’s retreat from Stalingrad in early 1943.

Still, unlike much of Europe, most of Hungary’s Jews remained alive in the spring of 1944. As an official ally of the Axis powers, Hitler had left Hungary to find its own solution to the “Jewish Question” up until this point.

Now, the Fuhrer demanded its Jews. That spring, with the Soviet army advancing on Hungary's border, and Hungary’s own army largely destroyed at Stalingrad, Nazi troops first entered Hungary’s borders. They came without resistance. Horthy invited the Fuhrer’s troops into the country, and then verbally agreed to send what was initially 100,000 Jews to Germans for “work” in a bid to remain in power. Compounding that number, Horthy decided instead to send the workers’ families as well, ultimately sealing the fates of some 437,000 Jews.

... with only some 150 Nazi Germans in charge of the deportations, it was left to officials of the Hungarian Interior Ministry, the Gendarmes and local authorities to carry out their orders. Rather than refuse to be complicit, Hungarians chose to cooperate. “The Germans pushed for concerted action against Hungarian Jewry, and Horthy not only did not resist—he put the government apparatus at their disposal. The well-oiled process of destruction of the Jews followed quickly: restrictions, wearing the Jewish badge, confiscations, the establishment of ghettos and systematic deportations,” Rozett writes.

Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Bingo. You got it.
unlike much of Europe, most of Hungary’s Jews remained alive in the spring of 1944. As an official ally of the Axis powers, Hitler had left Hungary to find its own solution to the “Jewish Question” up until this point.
[Jews were unsegregated and not required to wear the Star of David]
with only some 150 Nazi Germans in charge of the deportations, it was left to officials of the Hungarian Interior Ministry, the Gendarmes and local authorities to carry out their orders. Rather than refuse to be complicit, Hungarians chose to cooperate
[Soros helped identify Jews. Thats how he survived. Thats how he was rewarded with food and belongings of deportees]. nobs piss in my ear 00:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Point? This statement however true doesn't invalidate the fact that he must have been scared of Nazi persecution. Commie Lib (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to say he subscribed to Nazi ideology (other than the atheist and survival of the fittest aspect); it's not ridiculous to say he collaborated. The 85 year old lying sack of shit is saddled today with the guilty conscience of a 14 year old punk. As I said above, I have great compassion for him, or at least much more than I do Adolph Eichmann, who was an adult and only following orders. nobs piss in my ear 01:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've been watching the hundreds of hours of Eichmann Trial videos for quite sometime now. Here is an excerpt dealing with property seizures from about 28:00 to 36:00). It deals with an order he signed to seize property, which then became Reich property, and to prevent it from being taken by unauthorized persons. This order dates from the occupation of Austria which pre-dates the physical extermination program. In the hundreds of hours, it's the only portion I can recall that deals with property seizures. Also, if you wanna back up to about 19:00, there are a few references to the cooperation he recieved from other Jews relating to deportations, and also the expense involved. His plan was to have rich Jews pay the expense of deporting poor Jews, with the state treasury being the beneficiary of the remaining assets (he denies taking any money or property for himself).

Eichman's whole defense is based on claiming all he did was arrange transportation for deportations, which cost money from seized property, and had no hand or decision in what happened once people disembarked. nobs piss in my ear 09:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

How do you manage it?[edit]

Being so completely and openly dishonest. How do you do it? Acei9 05:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe having lived under and studied the lives and careers of Richard Nixon, Bill and Hillary Clinton had something to do with it. These are our national role models, you know, elected by the people. I had nothing to do with whom the American people chose to hold up to emulate. nobs piss in my ear 06:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
So you’re dishonest because it’s a learned behaviour from your politicians? Nice going carving yourself an ethical groundwork there Rob. Guess that Bible you have fades to a distant second as far as emulation goes. Acei9 07:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Did being so openly and unashamedly dishonest ever get you anywhere in life, Rob? Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 14:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Look, it's easy to make a charge. I could ask, "Where, when have I been dishonest?", however I'll just chalk up the charge to small minded people's inability to handle ambiguity. nobs piss in my ear 03:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Robs dishonesty. It comes from the fact that if Obama did anything Trump has done you’d nail his ass on it. You’re dishonest. You even seem to admit it. Normally people would feel a little shamed. You revel. What gives? Your Jesus would be very disappointed. That is if you actually believed the tenants of what you preach. But you don’t - it just gives you cover. Acei9 10:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I do not live my life daily, listening to news, attacking Barack Obama and defending Donald Trump, which obviously is what you consider to be a political discussion. There's plenty I disagree with Trump about and little I agree eith Obama on. But neither are the focus of my attention, interest, attitudes, or discussion. You're the one who keeps bringing up Obama, Trump, Palin or whoever. I respond with my views on those persons because you seem incapable of discussing anything else. And personally, I think you're pretty warped in your thinking if that's how you make judgements about people or formulate your own views. nobs piss in my ear 11:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
”But neither are the focus my attention” says the monomaniac spending 24 hours updating ‘Sandy’s” page in exclusion to the guy who lives in a house made of gold. Rob, Acei9 11:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Ocasio-Cortez? Interesting figure. It is amazing the parallels between her and Donald Trump, isn't it? nobs piss in my ear 11:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
as the title suggests - your honesty is what is in question. You have as a starting point. Acei9 12:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Continuing to piss in your ear, Nobs.[4] Should I get a funnel? Bongolian (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My God, you got it bass-akwards again. I've been accused of being part of the Q cabal, not a follower. nobs piss in my ear 05:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Who gives a flying fuck. You're propagating that bullshit. Bongolian (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
What bullshit?nobs piss in my ear 06:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The bullshit that you wrote on Conservapedia about Soros and other topics. Bongolian (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Your making Hillary Clinton out to be a liar. Civility was supposed to be restored after the election, remember? nobs piss in my ear 20:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
No one said that. I allege the death of all republicans might do so. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
And you ran for Mod? nobs piss in my ear 21:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I did not. Also, I'd never ban all the republican users of the site. The death of all republicans is hypothetically about making a better society possible, not silencing voices of people I personally dislike. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Ahhhh, your just blinded by hate. nobs piss in my ear 22:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
People would be quite surprised how divided liberals are in their amalgam of conflicting agendas if they didn't have conservatives to unify against. Always be careful what you wish for. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
(EC)No way, the disputes between liberals, leftists, progressives, anarchists, and other not completely batshit ideologies make sense to have. There's so much real debate to be had without the compete batshit fuckers being involved. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I mean, it's no an unreasonable interpretation, that I'm hate-filled and cannot see clearly past the crimes against humanity, the international scale damage to the safety, wellbeing, and future of most people, and the facileness of you guys. It makes sense to question whether any person could make a fair judgement of such righteously awful human beings. But no matter how much I stop and consider the ways that could lead me astray, I repeatedly come to conclusion that I'm right about this; at the end of the day, the end must be either your ideology completely and utterly dying or literally all human beings. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sounds radical. Did God, Satan, or science give you this profound insight into the human psyche and the prophetic course of the planet? Or did you PIDOOMA it? nobs piss in my ear 22:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

None of those things, though science and your insane reaction to it is part. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Science, hmmm. Do you know what science is? You don't seem to know too much about two areas of human knowledge, liberalism and conservativism to even define those.
Secondly, does science lead you to have emotional, hate-filled reactions to other people? nobs piss in my ear 23:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious at least about what strains in particular Ikanreed takes offense at. Neocons and fundies are easy targets. Is supporting gun rights evil too? What about working class people who don't want to fund government healthcare? Or people who oppose abortion? Is nationalism always evil? Etc. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
"offense". I'm not personally offended, I genuinely just find your non-existence(be it some miracle you all stop believing this shit, dying off naturally and not indoctrinating more people, or just vanishing into thin air) an increasingly obvious precondition for a world that keeps living. As to "In particular", I'm out here with my lamp in the daytime looking so hard for the smallest, tiniest honest conservative movement, because there's none. None at all. It doesn't exist. You've got spite, you've got pseudo-economic theories, you've got fundamentalism, you've got huge racist hate-boners, but there's no coherent ideology behind anything labeled conservative. None of it. Even the libertarians who try constructing a world view on "government bad" magically invent "except when protecting private property or fighting wars" as an insane and baseless exception. And the coalition created is death-marching humanity for ecological catastrophe and cyberpunk dystopia and possibly nuclear war, but that last one's subjective. I cannot fathom a decent human being involved with any of it. I can see literal murderers with a better moral system, and more deserving of basic respect as human beings than you guys.
It's easy to call that "blinkered" or "partisan" or "tribal" or any other of very reasonable interpretations of that perspective from the outside, but it really comes down to what completely amoral, monstrous human beings you have to be to even consider saying "well hillary clinton sucks so I'll vote for the obvious fascist who made his intentions of ethnic cleansing clear". It's not "my way or the highway" it's "any way but the stupid, evil way you've selected" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, so it appears you've been looking in all the wrong places. Maybe check out the Claremont Institute for example, lots of interesting conservative content there. And sure, conservatism is very diverse and the public figures tend to be opportunist hypocrites, but that's not exclusive to conservatism you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
nah they're psychos who reprinted the charge that Sarah Jeong was racist to white people because she parodied a white racist's post, a charge that was made up by literal goddamn nazis. That's the most recent issue, I'm not archive diving for this evidence. Your "respectable conservatism" is just a cover file vile bullshit. I know that you acknowledging that you're completely and totally wrong about this single point will never happen. Which is why "none of you existing anymore" seems like the most plausible solution to your collective bullshit. And if you can't hear the dog whistles screaming in here, just fuck off. The "credible" versions of your ideology are the exact same garbage pail of obviously rationalizing bullshit as the "dumb" versions run through a thesaurus.
But because archive diving to things we both know were completely wrong, Here we have them positively screaming for the annhilation of the million Iraqis we can lay at the feet of Bush, with the charge that not enough pointless bombing of the middle east led to 9/11 because we were "weak", and a contemporaneous All muslims are evil article from 2002-2003. There's no deep insight here. There's just bloodlust.
Or let's go back to the 80s and find them saying gay people deserve to die of AIDS. Maybe this limp, half-hearted defense of apartheid is the missing apotheosis of real, decent, intellectual conservative thought?. They're barbaric, inhuman scum. They've always been scum. Stop defending being a part of a movement whose defining feature is evil contempt for mankind. Cut it out. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
She parodied the same post a hundred-something times then I suppose. Not that I take her many statements particularly serious, she was just repeating a popular trope. Leftist identity politics seems to lend itself to purely hypothetical genocides quite easily it seems. And again, you seem to be doing a lot of nutpicking here (plus projection/strawmanning). Eliminating the boundary between reasonable people and the nutty fringe only empowers the nutty fringe you know. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
"You're doing nutpicking going out of your way to specifically comment on 2 of the most recent 5 essays published by this publication I specifically highlighted as a bastion of clear thought".
I then went back in time, because I suspected you wouldn't accept that those awful articles were awful, but past conservative ideological failures are way more clear, and totally barbaric, and I thought showing that your "credible" sources bought into that shit, you might have a single, solitary moment of reflection. A single momentary questioning of your own moral clarity that you're constantly demanding from me. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
That said, do you think the U.S should pull troops out of Syria (which is an outgrowth of the bi-partisan plan to commit genocide against Iraqis and Muslims as you say, and was begun by Barack Obama)? Stop speaking in generalities and answer this specific question. Is Trump right or wrong? nobs piss in my ear 23:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Pulling troops out is correct; being an inhuman monster doesn't make you incapable of doing the right thing, just unconstrained by it. Trump remains an inhuman monster who made locking children in cages an active policy position. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Rob, Rob, Rob.... I can’t even[edit]

Your edits.... Jesus. Beto: pick unflattering picture for template, ignoring official pics. Standard for you. Then Beto picking his nose? He clearly isn’t. What’s wrong with you. Oh yeah, you’re dishonest. Acei9 20:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see where Beto has a problem with any. He consented to all photos, including the mugshot. He uploaded the one in the dental chair himself. nobs piss in my ear 21:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
can you read? Acei9 21:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Unflattering? You're not into cross dressers, Ace? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
yah, uh, right. Seems kinda transphobic, eh Ace? nobs piss in my ear 22:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
As to the booger shot, I think we caught him in flagrante delicto moments after he munched it down. There's no evidence on his fingers. Maybe Liz Warren could offer him a beer to wash it down. nobs piss in my ear 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Or you caught a picture of him with his hand on his face. Which you have labeled as him picking his nose because you think that is what he was doing. So you know, really fucking dishonest Rob. Acei9 22:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
What article is this? Commie Lib (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
THE Next President of THE United States, HIS Honorable Excellency, Robert Beto O'Rourke. Betomania! The White Obama! A Kennedy Resurrected from the Dead! He Is Risen! He's gone viral! nobs piss in my ear 00:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you're still puzzling over Nobs' various faults, @Tabula Rasa, I advise you to look at this page: Conservapedia:RobSmith. Nobs has been trolling RationalWiki for more than a decade: congratulations, Nobs! Bongolian (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not send me any more email[edit]

"Your inbred family had bowel movements. Hitler's inbred family had bowel movements. That's called corroborating evidence. What? Are you gonna deny science now too, in addition to being a bigot?"

If I am going to get content like this after blocking you, I would rather I not receive it. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC ()

  • (1) This needs to be memorialized. You abused your Mod powers to settle a personal score.
  • (2)You reject scienctific and historical evidence that an intelligence community assessment claimed (a) Hitler was a coprophiliac; (b) Hitler was homosexual, which was deemed a psychological malady at the time. (c) Hitler's mother was indeed his father's niece (numerous sources) and interfamial marriages in his bloodline dated back numerous generations (multiple sources).
  • (3) You have resorted to racist attacks.
  • (4) The blocking instructions clearly stated discuss with blocking Mod (I wasn't aware I could discuss on my Talk page, so I apologise for the second email).
  • (5) You're a menace to society. nobs piss in my ear 20:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with you? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
What now? You wanna make a coop case out of election year rhetoric? You abused your Mod powers, not me. And now you wanna cover it up. But you can't destroy your hostility toward science in the Hitler discussion by calling me a racist. Try rational thinking for once, rather than emotional leftism. nobs piss in my ear 20:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with you? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Why did you scroll up my comment "This assessment probably did more damage to science than good, being that there's a 50% chance it was fake" when you made the same point here. I offered an explanation, you offered an excuse for flawed science - which is basically the same thing.
And Hitler's heirs didn't turn out fine. His three nephews and only surviving bloodline have made a verbal pact not to reproduce cause they are convinced something's wrong with the bloodline and want it to die out (WP cites it here). Don't forget, his niece committed suicide. nobs piss in my ear 21:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@RobSmith You are correct Hitler was the result of an inbreed family. You are Wrong that he was gay. He Killed gay people. Commie Lib (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I never said he was gay. I said the best scienctific minds of his day said he was gay. nobs piss in my ear 21:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment on discussion on LGM Talk[edit]

I know intellectual reasoning isn't Bungolians strong suit, but here goes:

  • (1) my "inbred" comment in the heat of an election was a metaphor for sockpuppetry, not an attack on a users family.
  • (2) if you wanna consider terms like "racist" or "bigot" personal attacks, nobody's been victimized more than me. Any fair jury would make that determination. nobs piss in my ear 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, Wikipedia cites a scholarly source for which I was censored for using the same language and called an anti-Semite:

Kershaw contends that stories circulated by Strasser as to alleged "sexual deviant practices ought to be viewed as ... anti-Hitler propaganda" (see about link). nobs piss in my ear 22:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)