@FinnMacCool (1 Viewer)

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

All right you sanctimonious little sh!t let's see how you like it.

This guy recently started a thread to accuse me of political bias despite the fact that I back up every single one of my assertions with facts and evidence, since the inception of this thread he has so far not been able to disprove one of my statements and backs all of his own partisan statements with left wing rhetoric, opinion, and conjecture. His tactic of debate is to start off with a conclusion then repeat it enough times so that he can later attempt to pass it off as fact. I think his real beef with me is that I've been kicking liberal ass all over this site for the last two weeks or so.

 

[Comrade Brian]

"partisan statements with left wing rhetoric, opinion, and conjecture"

I didn't know Finn was so partisan, everyone can have their own opinions, unless we live in TrajanWorld.

I'm getting sick of your "partisan statements with right wing rhetoric, opinion, and conjecture":lol:

 

[Deegan]

Be the bigger man, only a punk needs to lower themself to this basement fodder, a simple good day sir, seems to work for me.

 

[FinnMacCool]

What are you? Non partisan? My ass. Nobody is non partisan on a debate forum. I am extremely biased. I'm not trying to be fair. Don't whine to me just because you can't bother to respond rationally.

I attacked you based upon your method of arguing, not on your bias. Why would I be so stupid as to call you biased? Everyone here is biased.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What are you? Non partisan? My ass. Nobody is non partisan on a debate forum. I am extremely biased. I'm not trying to be fair. Don't whine to me just because you can't bother to respond rationally.

I attacked you based upon your method of arguing, not on your bias. Why would I be so stupid as to call you biased? Everyone here is biased.

My method of debate is the statement of facts to prove my assertions and as we all know facts are like kryptonite to liberals.

 

[FinnMacCool]

My method of debate is the statement of facts to prove my assertions and as we all know facts are like kryptonite to liberals

Yes well if you consider Op-Ed pieces facts I cannot really help you there.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes well if you consider Op-Ed pieces facts I cannot really help you there.

Well if you cannot disseminate facts from opinion found in op-ed pieces then I cannot really help you there.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Well if you cannot disseminate facts from opinion found in op-ed pieces then I cannot really help you there.

Why should I have to? Op-Eds aren't evidence. They might cite things that make it evidence but as you fail to actually provide these things then theres nothing left to say.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No, your debate style of saying about fifteen lines of bullshit followed by one irrelevent fact, and claiming that since you backed up the one pointless fact everything else you said was true is more like watching a retarded person repeatedly run head first into your car door panel, at first it's really funny, then it's kind of sad, and then it's just ****ing annoying.

Nice little switcheroo though. Got any more Peewee Herman-esque comebacks?

Ya how bout you're a fake ass, sucker ass, mark ass, trick.

And a wannabe libertarian poser.

p.s. just because I constantly prove you wrong doesn't mean that my facts are irrelevent.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why should I have to? Op-Eds aren't evidence. They might cite things that make it evidence but as you fail to actually provide these things then theres nothing left to say.

I never used the opinion found in an op-ed as fact I used a fact found in an op-ed as fact and just for fun I'll mention the fact that the NSA article on the front page of the NYT's was, by any rational definition of the term, an op-ed and I saw about four Democratic senators holding it up and saying this is proof that we must filibuster the Patriot Act.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Constantly? Oh ho, well considering that you brag about how often you back your **** up with proof, why don't you show proof that you constantly prove me wrong. Please! I ****ing beg you!

You know why you won't? Cause you haven't. You have NEVER proven me wrong, and if you actually read any of my posts you'd ****ing know that, cause I, unlike you, have a functioning brain, and thus cover my ass most of the time.
i.e.
In the debate over the fairness act or whatever it was called, note, I never said the whole bill wasn't unconstitutional, I always said that from what you posted from the bill I didn't see anything unconstitutional. That's because I didn't give a **** about it, and thus wasn't gonna read the ****ing thing.

On the other hand:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=171008&postcount=27
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=171042&postcount=32
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=171083&postcount=37
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=171809&postcount=69
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=172087&postcount=93
(here's where it gets comical. I point out to you that you asserted that I personally only think that people who agree with me should have first ammendment rights, and ask you to back this up with proof from something I posted earlier, to which you responded with the fairness doctrine, which, unless I happened to write it, does not fit the criteria, but we'll let that one slide due to your abnormal level of stupidity, let's move on)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=172507&postcount=103
I think this one should count for about five or six, due to all the times you were repeatedly anally raped by me, but we'll count it as one, considering I could stop now and you won't be able to come up with enough places where you proved me wrong to match this)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=172917&postcount=139

And so on and so forth, you get the point, which is Galen rules, and your named after what I leave under your pillow after I'm done with your mom. If you want more, just go through the thread.
You'll find a bunch of posts from you that change the topic, a bunch of posts from me pointing out that you're an idiot, and two or three posts from me saying you made A point (still, you making a point isn't by default proving me wrong), but you're still an idiot.

So yes, mr. "I back up everything I say", back this **** up, show me where the **** have you EVER ****ing proven me wrong, let alone with the frequency to be able to be classified as "constantly"!:2razz:

Here's why you're wrong you have the right to PEACEFULLY assemble not act like a complete jack ass at public events:

peace·ful [pssfəl]
adj
1. quiet and calm: quiet, calm, and tranquil
a peaceful atmosphere

2. mentally calm: serene and untroubled in the mind

-peace·ful·ly, adv

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

shout

shout [showt]
v (past shout·ed, past participle shout·ed, present participle shout·ing, 3rd person present singular shouts)
1. vt say something loudly: to say or utter something very loudly
2. vi speak loudly: to speak in a loud or angry voice

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Jordan's got the ball, Jordan fades back, Jordan shoots, and that's the ball game, peace out I'm outta here.

 

[mixedmedia]

Apparently Finn is so MacCool that his own hate thread turns into a hate Trajan thread.

 

[mixedmedia]

Damn right!

And the world was aright, if only for an instant.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That's your idea of proving me wrong? That's your idea of proving me wrong CONSTANTLY?
You do realize, then, that it would be illegal to shout at a rock concert, right? I mean, think about it logically, if that was the legal contextual definition, then Slipknot would not be legally allowed to play concerts. Hell, the Doors wouldn't have been allowed to play shows, since Jim Morrison wasn't quiet and calm at all times.
It's **** like this that just further prove that you're retarded.
Combined with the fact that, even if this little mental turd did prove me wrong, your proof that you prove me wrong constantly was something that you had never even posted.
I know you don't get it, it's alright. There are homes where people like you are accepted and embraced.

So please excuse me, I must go wash my pants because I just shat myself from laughing so hard.
Please, try again!

Shouting at a rock concerts is different from shouting at a public event with the intent of disrupting that said event, your comparison of a rock concert to a speech is just further proof that you're ****ing retarted.

PS why don't you go and suck on Chomsky's dick some more.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Apparently Finn is so MacCool that his own hate thread turns into a hate Trajan thread.

I consider being hated by traitors and communists a badge of ****ing honor.

 

[mixedmedia]

you wanna know the funniest part? Right now Trojan's going through every post he has ever posted towards me to try to find a single time he's proven me wrong. I don't know how it could take so long, considering that he does it constantly!:doh

No ****...must be busy with that manifesto undoubtedly in the works.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh ho ho, I'm afraid I'm going to have to show the world how dumb you are again. The wording in the constitution that we have the right to gather peacefully, right? And you defined peaceful as:
peace·ful [pssfəl]
adj
1. quiet and calm: quiet, calm, and tranquil
a peaceful atmosphere

2. mentally calm: serene and untroubled in the mind
or do you not recall that?
And thus a rock concert, considering it is not quiet, calm, or tranquil, it is not a peaceful atmosphere, nor are the majority of rockers or people who frequent these shows mentally calm, in either context of being serene or untroubled in mind, right?
So thus, according to your definition of the word "peaceful", rock concerts are not protected, and could legally be not allowed for being either loud, energy filled, or just frequented by angst filled teenagers.

And thus, in saying that interpretting freedom speech as not protecting rock shows is ****ing retarded, we're in complete agreement:ws

You go to a rock concert to get buck wild you go to a speech to listen, people pay to go to that speech to listen when you go to a speech to protest that's fine but you have to do it peacefully if you do not then you are not protected by the first amendment, again your comparison of the two is fallacious,

and since you must have read that part before I edited it I'll give it to you once again:

P.S. why don't you go suck off Chomsky's dick some more ****er?

 

[mixedmedia]

I consider being hated by traitors and communists a badge of ****ing honor.

Here's a definition for you.....

Main Entry: meg·a·lo·ma·nia
Pronunciation: "meg-&-lO-'mA-nE-&, -ny&
Function: noun
: a delusional mental disorder that is marked by infantile feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh my, seems like someone's getting cranky!

Shouting at a rock concert is different than shouting at a public event with the purpose to disrupt. Doesn't change the fact that according to your definition of the word peaceful that you implied was the definition for the constitution, neither shouting at a rock concert and shouting to disrupt a public event would be constitutinally protected. I'm sorry that this seems to be lost on you.

And by the way, those who are left resorting to stereotypes are the ones who have nothing of merit left to say.

Disrupting a public event is illegal consider this if you go to a movie theatre and start shouting in the middle of the movie you're going to get your ass kicked the **** out like it been said many times free speech is not permission to shout fire in a crowded theatre.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

True, but you're changing your argument, you were arguing that the definition that you provided was the definition of "peaceful" used in the constitution.

If you honestly think you've gotta convince me that rock concerts should be protected by the constitution, then you are even dumber than I've given you credit for.

But also, you're wrong here too. If I yell during a movie, I have broken no law. I may be removed from the theater, due to breaking a theater rule, but yelling "You suck" in a crowded theater at the top of my lungs is protected by the first ammendment. Now you hitting me in response is not.

Dude, seriously, go back and read your posts. You used to be smart, try to find any little shred of that intelligence that may remain inside of you, and analyze your posts and think "Is this the me I really want to project to the world?"


WAIT!!! I know what happened!
You remember Libertarian (a.k.a. Hetero Defense League) from over the summer? I bet he found the real Trajan, killed him, and has been posting under Trajan's screen name!
If not, I really can't figure out how a reasonably intelligent (not the sharpest tool in the box, but was still on this side of Shamgar) turned into an even dumber version of Navy Pride overnight!

And by the way, I'm saying this now with complete honesty, you are dumber than Navy Pride. I respect Navy Pride, because even for how ****ing dumb he is, you have to actually try to show how stupid he is sometimes. I don't respect you cause it's not even remotely hard to show how dumb you are. It's like if you put Urlacher up against a retarded midget with a sword that weighs 400 pounds more than the midget could lift, it's not even a contest.

I think I've made my point. If you still think you have any dignity left, congratulations. I, on the other hand feel like I just beat up a puppy (I mean, it's not your fault that you're so dumb, you're too dumb to realize it!), so I'm going to bed.

Good day.

So what the **** is your definition of peaceful then because that wasn't mine I didn't make it up it's the ****ing dictionaries if you think that going into a public event, shouting down the speaker, and generally making an ass out of yourself is even remotely what the framers of the constitution had in mind when they wrote the first amendment then no offense but you are a ****ing retard.

As for the rest of this **** that you posted it's a bunch of ad-hominen attacks wrapped up in an attempt to make yourself feel superior.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Dude, are you really not getting this? Are you really so lost and confused that you don't understand what I've said so far? Is it really so complicated for you to get that obviously the definition you posted is not the one intended by the founding fathers?

And plus, about this supposed jackass clause, let's check out the first ammendment:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Where's the jackass clause? Where does it say that I cannot be as much of a jackass as I please?
Are you, someone who claims to love America, accusing the founding fathers of being thoughtless? Cause if what you're saying they intended was actually what they intended, why didn't they add it on?

I must say, I'm impressed at the effort you're making to act exactly like other republicans, the whole "Oh ****, we're losing here, so let's change the topic!" thing, you're ducking questions and changing the subject like a pro!

The only problem is that you're stupid, and thus it doesn't matter if you change the subject, or misrepresent what I say to make it seem like something that you might be able to argue against, cause you're stupid. What you say is stupid, regardless of the topic. It's just how you roll.

Dude you're still not getting it you CAN act like a jack ass all you want just not when you're protesting a public event that's called an act of civil disobedience which is in fact a crime I'm not saying that it's all that bad or even wrong at all just that it's not covered under the first amendment as for the jack ass clause it's right ****ing here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I will relent that the the definition I was looking up was peacefully when it should have been peaceable but the definition of the latter is even more damning for your argument than the former:

peace·a·ble

peace·a·ble [pssəb’l]
adj
1. disposed toward peace: inclined toward peace and avoiding contentious situations
2. tranquil: tranquil and free from strife and disorder

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Now unless you can offer up an alternative defintion for peaceably then I'm going to use the one from the dictionary.

Thanks for the ad-hominem attacks though it only goes to further prove that you have no real argument . . . dick. :mrgreen:

How's that for a logical argument?

ps here's a good article by Thoreau on civil disobedience:

http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html

 

[cnredd]

Trajan

Tray-gen
noun
1. Someone who used to be respected in this forum, but decided to take every debatable topic and turn it into a flame war with petty accusations
2. A previous non-prick(current status has changed)

cnredd ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1970-2005 cnredd Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trajan

Tray-gen
noun
1. Someone who used to be respected in this forum, but decided to take every debatable topic and turn it into a flame war with petty accusations
2. A previous non-prick(current status has changed)

cnredd ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1970-2005 cnredd Corporation. All rights reserved.

Thanks alot thanx a god damn lot maybe if you ****ing people didn't start a thread with the specific intent of calling me out then I wouldn't be such a prick, I think that last post from me got my point a cross in a non-prick manner but if you would rather me be a prick then fine **** you, suck a dick, and here's a spoon so you can eat my ass. :mrgreen:

 

[vergiss]

Woah, bad time of the month.

While you're at it Trajan, us liberals eat aborted baby soup and have gay sex orgies every night.

 

[Caine]

Thanks alot thanx a god damn lot maybe if you ****ing people didn't start a thread with the specific intent of calling me out then I wouldn't be such a prick, I think that last post from me got my point a cross in a non-prick manner but if you would rather me be a prick then fine **** you, suck a dick, and here's a spoon so you can eat my ass. :mrgreen:

Grow up you worthless piece of ****.