Conquer Club

OK... let's get back on track here.

Gisele is a Liberal.
Gisele is a Hypocrit.
This trait is typical of Liberals.

jimboston wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:Superbowl rings don't measure how good a quarterback is at quarterback, it shows how good of a leader he is. Brady is among the best in the league, but THE best...Idk. Manning is THE best in my opinion.

Which Manning?

BTW... IMHO your opinion sucks.

I think you missed my question, kind sir! How many rings did Tom Brady win last year?

I didn't miss it, I chose to ignore it because we all know the answer and it's moot. No one can win the ring every year.

Non-debateable fact... Brady has the most Super Bowl rings of any active Quarterback.

Based on this fact I profess (debateable opinion) that he is the greatest Quarterback in the NFL. (The preposition in would infer active participant.)

Fail! Once in the NFL, always in the NFL. Even if I granted you your prepositional license, Brady is hardly the best quarterback out of all current, active players. In fact, and you can come back to this quote as a reference at the end of this coming season, NO playoffs for the Patsies this fall. I am no Green Bay fan, no Vikings fan, and really, not that much of a Brett Favre fan, but you cannot argue against his success, and he therefore would be my vote for best current QB.

jimboston wrote:Non-debateable fact... Brady has the most Super Bowl rings of any active Quarterback.

Another Non-debateable fact. If you love your team you claim them; you don't try to dissassociate yourself from them by making them a part of a wider geographic.

Like the "Florida" Marlins ... who play in Miami.
And the "New England" Patriots ... who play in Foxboro just SW of Boston.

By the way, how many of Brady's rings was a result of the NE coaching staff going against the rules and spying on opposing teams playbooks?

This thread should be bursting with pictures of hot wet nurses.

tzor wrote:

jimboston wrote:Non-debateable fact... Brady has the most Super Bowl rings of any active Quarterback.

Another Non-debateable fact. If you love your team you claim them; you don't try to dissassociate yourself from them by making them a part of a wider geographic.

Like the "Florida" Marlins ... who play in Miami.
And the "New England" Patriots ... who play in Foxboro just SW of Boston.

By the way, how many of Brady's rings was a result of the NE coaching staff going against the rules and spying on opposing teams playbooks?

I don't even know what you mean by "try to dissassociate yourself from them". WHF do you mean? BTW... did I even ever claim that I loved the Pats?

(Though they are the best team in the NFL... if not ever at least right now.)

... and to your secons question... try NONE!

2dimes wrote:This thread should be bursting with pictures of hot wet nurses.

Easy to find picture of hot nurses... no so easy to find picture of hot "wet nurses" or even hot and wet nurses.

How about this for a wet nurse?

... and while we are at it... the Pats also have the hottest fans...



This should be a whole new thread.

Conservatives believe government shouldn't tell people what to do. People should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. Unless two men are sharing a bed......government really needs to do something about that.

Conservatives believe in fiscal restraint.........unless there are WMD to be found and people to have freedom bestowed on them. Then we should spend trillions on a wild goose chase........and obliterate tax receipts while were at it becuase we can just borrow money from a repressive communist country like, say, China. Did I mention the freedom part?

Conservatives believe in LIFE.......unless you killed someone, then we'll have to kill you too....you know.....to even the score up. Because you see, they're for life before you're born and then you're basically on your own. Pull up your bootstraps, boy!

jimboston wrote:

tzor wrote:

jimboston wrote:Non-debateable fact... Brady has the most Super Bowl rings of any active Quarterback.

Another Non-debateable fact. If you love your team you claim them; you don't try to dissassociate yourself from them by making them a part of a wider geographic.

Like the "Florida" Marlins ... who play in Miami.
And the "New England" Patriots ... who play in Foxboro just SW of Boston.

By the way, how many of Brady's rings was a result of the NE coaching staff going against the rules and spying on opposing teams playbooks?

I don't even know what you mean by "try to dissassociate yourself from them". WHF do you mean? BTW... did I even ever claim that I loved the Pats?

(Though they are the best team in the NFL... if not ever at least right now.)

... and to your secons question... try NONE!

Jimboston = megafail

Accept the reality of those rings...and the call against the raiders.

jimboston wrote:I don't even know what you mean by "try to dissassociate yourself from them". WHF do you mean? BTW... did I even ever claim that I loved the Pats?

Then why are they not the "Boston" Pats?
Or even the "Massachusetts" Pats?
No they are the "New England" Pats, as though you are trying to brush them off to some pathetic state like Vermont or Connecticutt.

I dare you to do that to the Red Sox. I double dare you.

PerkinsRooster wrote:Conservatives believe government shouldn't tell people what to do. People should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. Unless two men are sharing a bed......government really needs to do something about that.

Not all conservatives are opposed to gay marriage... one can be fiscally conservative and not socially conservative.

Additionally, there is a big difference between "allowing" something and "condoning or supporting" something. There are all kinds of implications to gay marriage that go beyond just living together and sharing a bed... you open the door to fiscal issue; and you 'force' acceptance of this lifestyle on institutions that are morally opposed to it on religious grounds. This is a thread in-and-of itself. It is not a carte-blanche example of Conservative Hypocrisy.

PerkinsRooster wrote: Conservatives believe in fiscal restraint.........unless there are WMD to be found and people to have freedom bestowed on them. Then we should spend trillions on a wild goose chase........and obliterate tax receipts while were at it becuase we can just borrow money from a repressive communist country like, say, China. Did I mention the freedom part?

Another weak argument... the counter argument is simply that fiscal restraint is secondary to national security. Even if you are correct here (which I disagree with but I understand your case) you are really just talking about how Bush was hypocritical... not about a basic Conservative position.

That... and many Conservatives I know disown Bush for the very reasons you are calling him hypocritical.

PerkinsRooster wrote: Conservatives believe in LIFE.......unless you killed someone, then we'll have to kill you too....you know.....to even the score up. Because you see, they're for life before you're born and then you're basically on your own.

Super Fail. This is a better example of how Liberals are again hypocritical. Who is more deserving of death... someone guilty of murder, or a completely innocent? If you don't answer this question then there can be no discussion.

I didn't make that argument because Abortion and the Death Penalty are too emotionally charged... and you therefore can't include these and expect to have a rational argument.

Go back to the drawing table.

jimboston wrote:
Not all conservatives are opposed to gay marriage... one can be fiscally conservative and not socially conservative.

Additionally, there is a big difference between "allowing" something and "condoning or supporting" something. There are all kinds of implications to gay marriage that go beyond just living together and sharing a bed... you open the door to fiscal issue; and you 'force' acceptance of this lifestyle on institutions that are morally opposed to it on religious grounds. This is a thread in-and-of itself. It is not a carte-blanche example of Conservative Hypocrisy.



Another weak argument... the counter argument is simply that fiscal restraint is secondary to national security. Even if you are correct here (which I disagree with but I understand your case) you are really just talking about how Bush was hypocritical... not about a basic Conservative position.

That... and many Conservatives I know disown Bush for the very reasons you are calling him hypocritical.



Super Fail. This is a better example of how Liberals are again hypocritical. Who is more deserving of death... someone guilty of murder, or a completely innocent? If you don't answer this question then there can be no discussion.

I didn't make that argument because Abortion and the Death Penalty are too emotionally charged... and you therefore can't include these and expect to have a rational argument.

Go back to the drawing table.

Sorry, I'm not too good at editing quotes...

Of course not all conservatives agree with that position, but millions do, and it's a hypocritical position if you believe in minimal government intervention in private life. Simply saying that just because every conservative doesn't believe that it's wrong and therefore it's not worthy to bring up in a discussion is a weak rebuttal. I could say the same thing about liberals. For instance there are many mostly liberal people who are against legal abortion. That doesn't negate any argument against it from a conservative point of view.

I used Bush as an example, but the general consensus that conservatives are better stewards of the economy is preposterous. Since the Nixon administration, the debt has consistenly fallen when Democrats are in power and risen when Republicans are in power. Not to be smug, but here in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Kanada (DPRK) we are supposedly a bunch of socialists sucking at the teet of government, yet our economy is arguably the strongest in the world....and it was the Liberal Party that declared war on the national debt in the 1990's.

My point has nothing to do with who deserves death more, but rather it seems hypocritical to me to be so horrified about abortion on one hand, and then on the other have no qualms about putting that baby in a position where there is little hope for a productive life if it's born in say a Baltimore ghetto (because remember the Department of Education needs to be abolished and social assistance well, forget about it you're on your own).

PerkinsRooster wrote: Sorry, I'm not too good at editing quotes...

Of course not all conservatives agree with that position, but millions do, and it's a hypocritical position if you believe in minimal government intervention in private life. Simply saying that just because every conservative doesn't believe that it's wrong and therefore it's not worthy to bring up in a discussion is a weak rebuttal. I could say the same thing about liberals. For instance there are many mostly liberal people who are against legal abortion. That doesn't negate any argument against it from a conservative point of view.

I used Bush as an example, but the general consensus that conservatives are better stewards of the economy is preposterous. Since the Nixon administration, the debt has consistenly fallen when Democrats are in power and risen when Republicans are in power. Not to be smug, but here in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Kanada (DPRK) we are supposedly a bunch of socialists sucking at the teet of government, yet our economy is arguably the strongest in the world....and it was the Liberal Party that declared war on the national debt in the 1990's.

My point has nothing to do with who deserves death more, but rather it seems hypocritical to me to be so horrified about abortion on one hand, and then on the other have no qualms about putting that baby in a position where there is little hope for a productive life if it's born in say a Baltimore ghetto (because remember the Department of Education needs to be abolished and social assistance well, forget about it you're on your own).

No need to apologize.

I understand all your points... and I agree a LOT of Conservative/Republicans (a lot fo politicians in general) are hypocritical.

I happen to be more Libertarian... though I don't pretend to be an extreme Libertarian.

I do see... and think I can argue the fact... that several KEY "Liberal" policies are BY-THEIR-VERY-NATURE hypocritical.

I think some of your examples may be examples of hypocrisy... but they are not by-their-nature hypocritical.

tzor wrote:

jimboston wrote:I don't even know what you mean by "try to dissassociate yourself from them". WHF do you mean? BTW... did I even ever claim that I loved the Pats?

Then why are they not the "Boston" Pats?
Or even the "Massachusetts" Pats?
No they are the "New England" Pats, as though you are trying to brush them off to some pathetic state like Vermont or Connecticutt.

I dare you to do that to the Red Sox. I double dare you.

He is ignoring us...ho hum. Perhaps its because his teams are so weak.

Queen_Herpes wrote:

tzor wrote:

jimboston wrote:I don't even know what you mean by "try to dissassociate yourself from them". WHF do you mean? BTW... did I even ever claim that I loved the Pats?

Then why are they not the "Boston" Pats?
Or even the "Massachusetts" Pats?
No they are the "New England" Pats, as though you are trying to brush them off to some pathetic state like Vermont or Connecticutt.

I dare you to do that to the Red Sox. I double dare you.

He is ignoring us...ho hum. Perhaps its because his teams are so weak.

I would NEVER ignore you my Queen.

I unfortunateky have no say in the naming of the local sports teams.

That said... the Sox, Bruins, and Celtics actually play in Boston. The New England Patriots stadium is no in the ciyt of Boston... it is 30 miles outside.

You know, I happen to agree with Jimboston. Except that football jabberish, of course. I mean, how could you disagree with his claim that "there are liberals which are hypocritical"? I'm more or less getting the idea that all repliers in this thread don't really get this. I'm especially finding it extremely amusing that people are actually trying to fight Jim with arguments that have actual contents

I'm not really arguing that there aren't liberals who are hypocritical, I'm just not sure that liberal policy is any more hypocritical than conservative policy as a whole.

PerkinsRooster wrote:Conservatives believe government shouldn't tell people what to do. People should be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. Unless two men are sharing a bed......government really needs to do something about that.

Conservatives believe in fiscal restraint.........unless there are WMD to be found and people to have freedom bestowed on them. Then we should spend trillions on a wild goose chase........and obliterate tax receipts while were at it becuase we can just borrow money from a repressive communist country like, say, China. Did I mention the freedom part?

Conservatives believe in LIFE.......unless you killed someone, then we'll have to kill you too....you know.....to even the score up. Because you see, they're for life before you're born and then you're basically on your own. Pull up your bootstraps, boy!

fail. i'm a true conservative and i don't believe any of that shit (except the last one... i'm against infanticide).

If you want to get nit picky, Libertarians believe that government shouldn't tell people what to do.

Religious conservatives tend not to be libertarians and tend to be statist as they advance their religious agena.