Who do you want to see go?

[OB1]

My awesome meatwad avatar or Weltall's crappy Ann Coulter avatar?


Super-annoying and "so damn hideous to look at it burns your eyes" Ann Coulter:




Or...

Dancing, funny-as-hell and cute-as-a-button Meatwad:



And NO CHEATING!

[A Black Falcon]

Ann Coulter. Meatwad's not annoying...

[OB1]

Who voted for Meatwad??

[A Black Falcon]

Someone who doesn't like you? I don't know... wasn't me. :)

[The Former DMiller]

Haha, he'll never know that I can't stand that bouncing Meatwad. Wait a minute...am I typing this right now? Oh no! Don't hit submit reply!

[OB1]

*gasp*!!!

How could you not like meatwad???!!!

[Moiraine]

Sorry I went with the meat wad as well. But I hate welty's avatar more...

[OB1]

So... you don't like my avatar but hate Weltall's even more... therefor you chose mine.

....

That sure makes sense!

[Moiraine]

Alright now smart ass... I made the wrong vote... Welty's should have one more and you should have one less. I hit enter when I had the dot on your slot and forgot that it would submit a vote..

[OB1]

I'll edit it then.

[Fittisize]

Is Ann Coulter the one who wrote the book called 'Treason' and says that all liberals are evil or some stupid shit like that?

[Private Hudson]

Meatwad rocks.

[OB1]

You tell 'em!

[A Black Falcon]

Ann Coulter is a radical, radical right wing nut job, so that well might be her... don't know for sure but its very possible.

[Undertow]

There's conservative, then there's Ann Coulter.

Besides, she looks a lot like streisand. That's reason enough to get rid of her avatar.

[Weltall]

Haha, I made it a moot point. :D

The meatwad is still annoying.

[Great Rumbler]

*accidentally votes for Pat Buchanan*

The ballot was too confusing!

[alien space marine]

Osama bush would be good for weltall.

[A Black Falcon]

Yes, it would... :D

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Yes, it would... :D

Osama Bush isn't a hot blonde. Sorry.

[OB1]

You find Ann Coulter to be hot???!!




Good grief, Ryan! What is the matter with you!??!!

[A Black Falcon]

Because she shares his (...different...) political beliefs, I guess... :S

[Weltall]

She's hot compared to her liberal counterparts, Al Franken and Michael Moore, who in addition to being very unfunny and completely wacko politically, are ugly, and in Moore's case, posessing the hygiene habits of a shit beetle.

I can't help that.

Besides which, when I posted that I had already replaced Ann with Diana Krall, who in addition to being an incredibly talented jazz musician, is also a hot blonde, and it was her I was referring to.

[OB1]

Al Franken is extremely funny. I find it very sad how all of you take these stupid sides seeing as how both parties are very flawed.

[Great Rumbler]

Al Franken insulted Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, and Fox News [almost at the same time] and that's inescusable in my book.

[A Black Falcon]

Al Franken is hilarious... and Fox News has no credibility worth mentioning. Of course Fox TV doesn't either...

Both parties are flawed? Well... true, neither one is perfect. What would you prefer, though? A perpetual centrist government? I don't know if that' be so great either... and don't say 'no parties' because that doesn't work at all. And as for parliamentary-style governments with lots of parties and cooalitions... it works, sorta, but it leads to far more elections and doesn't help a lot with providing more real perspectives -- it generally still ends up with two big groups.

So is it perfect? No way. But what is the alternative?

And as for us... I wish I knew too why TC has so many conservatives... :)

[OB1]

With this bipartisan system people blindy take sides on issues simply because they are supported by their party. Democrats will always vote for Democratic presidents and Democratic issues and the same thing goes for Republicans and their issues and presidents. Both parties have their own strengths and weaknesses, but neither will seriously consider the other side's point just because they're the other side. Even if you agree with most of what your party believes in, don't even try to tell me that you think they're completely right and that the other side is completely wrong. Not even Weltall, the super-conservative. It's a very poor system.

Just look at GR, for example. Al Franken is a hilarious man and I'm 100% positive that GR would find his books funny since it's exactly the kind of humor that he likes, but since he's chosen to take the side of a Republican he doesn't even want to give the man a chance because he bashes some people on the right. It makes me very sad.

[Great Rumbler]

Al Franken is a hilarious man and I'm 100% positive that GR would find his books funny

Maybe.

but since he's chosen to take the side of a Republican

Actually I'm taking the side of people and and a tv station that I like.

he doesn't even want to give the man a chance because he bashes some people on the right. It makes me very sad.

I actually read a small portion of his book, mainly the part where he complained about Bill O'Reilly being mean to him or something. It bored me tears. I put it back on the shelf. I might consider reading a bit more of it, but from what I've seen and heard I don't think I really care to hear what he has to say.

[OB1]

Maybe.

You would definitely laugh at his stuff if you took off that "grumpy republican" cap.

Actually I'm taking the side of people and and a tv station that I like.

Just hear what he has to say.

I actually read a small portion of his book, mainly the part where he complained about Bill O'Reilly being mean to him or something. It bored me tears. I put it back on the shelf. I might consider reading a bit more of it, but from what I've seen and heard I don't think I really care to hear what he has to say.

That's your bias talking. That part about Bill O'Reilly was hilarious and the way he described how O'Reilly got mad at him was especially funny.

Hey, I agree with some of the things that O'Reilly says but Franken's section on him is very, very funny.

[Fittisize]

Michael Moore is a good man...his books are amazing (actually, I've only read one, but it WAS the best non-fic. book I've read), and the same with his movies. Bowling for Columbine is an extremely interesting and well made documentary, and Canadian Bacon is one hilarious movie. He's a pretty funny and smart guy in all.

Anne Coulter, I dunno. I don't care for her much. She was on CNN once and her opinions were extremely stupid and just plain wrong, like, for example, accusing all liberals of treason. At least Moore doesn't accuse ALL Republicans of being stupid, just the ones that really (George Bush II, for example).

[OB1]

I would have more respect for Moore if Bowling for Columbine wasn't filled with so many inaccuracies.

[Fittisize]

What kind of innacuracies?

[Laser Link]

It doesn't really matter which avatar is worse, because mine is the best.

[OB1]

Originally posted by Fittisize
What kind of innacuracies?

Ah, let me list the ones that I remember:

1. That clip of Cheston holding up a gun and saying "from my cold, dead hands" didn't happen at the Denver meeting like Moore suggested, but actually took place one year later in North Carolina.

2. At the beginning of the movie where Moore walks into the bank to open an account and gets a free gun, he makes it seem as though they have the guns right there and that it only takes him a few moments to get the gun. The truth is that he had to wait two whole weeks and get a background check on him as the Brady law requires, and the gun he got was actually picked up at a seperate location, not at the bank itself. The guns they had there were display props.

You know, some of the points he makes in the documentary are very good (especially about how Japan--the home of tons of violent games and movies--has a very low murder rate while the U.S. does not) and it really would have been a lot better if he hadn't twisted certain facts.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
And as for us... I wish I knew too why TC has so many conservatives... :)

It's just indicative of the rest of America, duh.

[Dark Jaguar]

Watched that show. Yeah, that guy twists things around for his purposes. Interesting point that Canada has all manner of guns and they don't seem to have much gun violence. There's the problem though. He ONLY asked how many people were killed with guns. The main point of the movie was supposed to be our violence in general, not just gun violence (and if it wasn't, it should have been, murder is murder, no matter how it's done). He should have asked how many murders, regardless of method, were done in Canada. That would have been a fairer comparison.

[OB1]

Well Hong Kong and Japan have much lower murder rates than the U.S., and guns are banned over there (although it's not as strict in HK as it is in Japan). Lots of gangs in HK and I'm sure there would be more deaths if they didn't just have to use knives. They sure try, though.

[A Black Falcon]

You wish, Weltall...

[Great Rumbler]

You would definitely laugh at his stuff if you took off that "grumpy republican" cap.

Maybe I'd give his book a chance if you'd stop being a "liberal baby" and whining at me because I don't like Al Franken.

...

Just kidding!! I'll give his book another chance...well as much a one as I can give in the amount of time I have to flip through it while I'm at Wal-Mart, because I almost never spend $18+ on a book unless it says "Robert Jordan", "David Eddings", or "Terry Brooks" on the front.

[OB1]

Maybe I'd give his book a chance if you'd stop being a "liberal baby" and whining at me because I don't like Al Franken.

...

Just kidding!! I'll give his book another chance...well as much a one as I can give in the amount of time I have to flip through it while I'm at Wal-Mart, because I almost never spend $18+ on a book unless it says "Robert Jordan", "David Eddings", or "Terry Brooks" on the front.

The things he says about Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter are all true (like how O'Reilly has lied on numerous occasions, including about him not being a Republican even though he is a registered Republican, and then with Ann Coulter about how she claimed that the New York Times waited three days to report the death of Dale Earnhardt when in fact they reported it the very next day of the accident, etc.), although he does resort to childish name-calling which is actually just a joke which some people don't get. It's like the title of his book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". The book itself has some very intelligent topics and points but Franken uses smart and childish humor, sometimes at the same time. It's very funny. You should pick up his book "Oh the things I know!", which is non-political but still extremely funny. It should be pretty cheap, too.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by OB1
Well Hong Kong and Japan have much lower murder rates than the U.S., and guns are banned over there (although it's not as strict in HK as it is in Japan). Lots of gangs in HK and I'm sure there would be more deaths if they didn't just have to use knives. They sure try, though.

Anomalous. Give similar stats for Britain a look. The fact is that gun control doesn't disarm those who don't follow the law to begin with. All the gun control laws we have now doesn't even begin to stem the flow of assault rifles and other weapons which are already illegal.

One should also note that fifty years ago, when anyone could own a gun and rifling courses were taught in friggin high school, murder rates were at a tiny fraction of what they are today. It's funny how none of this matters. One doesn't have to point out that our murder problem has always followed on the tail of our drug problem... Guns aren't the issue, plummeting morality is.

Simple fact is, banning guns is one of those good intentions that pave the road to Hell. Even if there were some reason to justify a solution that obviously causes more problems than it solves, there's that whole idea of rescinding one of the primary Amendments.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by OB1
Ann Coulter about how she claimed that the New York Times waited three days to report the death of Dale Earnhardt when in fact they reported it the very next day of the accident, etc

That ended up being one of the only things he was telling the truth about. The rest were either inaccuracies or outright lies.

[Fittisize]

Fair enough on those points about BFC, OB1. I never knew about that, but I personally think getting a gun for choosing a certain bank is retarted. I dunno, call me crazy.

Still an excellent documentary regardless.

[OB1]

Anomalous. Give similar stats for Britain a look. The fact is that gun control doesn't disarm those who don't follow the law to begin with. All the gun control laws we have now doesn't even begin to stem the flow of assault rifles and other weapons which are already illegal.

One should also note that fifty years ago, when anyone could own a gun and rifling courses were taught in friggin high school, murder rates were at a tiny fraction of what they are today. It's funny how none of this matters. One doesn't have to point out that our murder problem has always followed on the tail of our drug problem... Guns aren't the issue, plummeting morality is.

Simple fact is, banning guns is one of those good intentions that pave the road to Hell. Even if there were some reason to justify a solution that obviously causes more problems than it solves, there's that whole idea of rescinding one of the primary Amendments.

Yeah, getting rid of guns sure would make this country a living hell!

But seriously, I think it's perfectly fine for people to have right to own a gun if they pass a background check. I don't know why so many of you have a problem with that.

That ended up being one of the only things he was telling the truth about. The rest were either inaccuracies or outright lies.

Gee wiz, Ann Coulter says that Franken was lying. How surprising.

I bet you're also going to defend Bill O'Reilly and all of the lies he has told, such as how he claims to be an independent and how he now claims that he never compared Mein Kampf to The Quran. I even saw the shows where he made direct comparisons between the two books! It was about how ACLU was forcing students to either read the Quran or write an essay about why they don't want to read it. Now while I don't agree with them doing that, Bill O'Reilly saying that this would be like forcing people during WW2 to read Mein Kompf was one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard him say. That was about when I started to lose respect for him.

[Fittisize]

I have Mein Kampf...but I haven't read it. Is it good?

[OB1]

[A Black Falcon]

I'd argue more... but "arguing" with Weltall about politics gets you about as far as arguing with a brick...

Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, et al, are bigoted, foaming-at-the-mouth, hatemongering idiots.

And as for gun-murder rates...

They are really high in the US, and we have many guns.

They are pretty low in Europe, and they have very few guns (though its been going up a bit in England, compared to levels here they have next to none...). They are similarly low in nearly gun-free Japan... and they are similarly low in Canada, a nation with many guns.

Now... are we the only nation with lots of gun violence? No. But there are a lot of nations out there that do a significantly better job than us.

"morality"? Sorry... I don't understand that arguement at all... by your bizarre standards most of the nations that have the low levels of gun violence are "less moral" ones, I'd think... or something, I don't get your arguement.

It is proven. Getting rid of guns reduces crime a lot of crime. Now, sure, it'd be better to do it like Canada and just have a society that just isn't as violent, but we don't have that... but of course that brings up more issues. We do have people who use guns for legitimate purposes, after all... in a perfect world I think that we'd have all handguns (most violence is handguns) and automatic guns and stuff banned, but people would be able to get guns for hunting if they pass the background check... I don't think we could ban those. Not without a more dramatic change in our society than is realistic.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by OB1
Yeah, getting rid of guns sure would make this country a living hell!

But seriously, I think it's perfectly fine for people to have right to own a gun if they pass a background check. I don't know why so many of you have a problem with that.

You missed the point of the allusion.

I agree with background checks myself. The problem is, people who wish to use a gun for unscrupulous activities is going to bypass that process and get one on the black market. Therefore, it really doesn't accomplish much.

Gee wiz, Ann Coulter says that Franken was lying. How surprising.

He was wrong. She proved it. Sorry. :(

I bet you're also going to defend Bill O'Reilly and all of the lies he has told, such as how he claims to be an independent and how he [b]now claims that he never compared Mein Kampf to The Quran. I even saw the shows where he made direct comparisons between the two books! It was about how ACLU was forcing students to either read the Quran or write an essay about why they don't want to read it. Now while I don't agree with them doing that, Bill O'Reilly saying that this would be like forcing people during WW2 to read Mein Kompf was one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard him say. That was about when I started to lose respect for him. [/B]

I won't defend O'Reilly. I agree with some things he says, but hardly everything.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
I'd argue more... but "arguing" with Weltall about politics gets you about as far as arguing with a brick...

Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, et al, are bigoted, foaming-at-the-mouth, hatemongering idiots.

[

If so, so is Al Franken and Michael Moore and... well, that's about all the left's got. :(

And as for gun-murder rates...

They are really high in the US, and we have many guns.

They are pretty low in Europe, and they have very few guns (though its been going up a bit in England, compared to levels here they have next to none...). They are similarly low in nearly gun-free Japan... and they are similarly low in Canada, a nation with many guns.

Now... are we the only nation with lots of gun violence? No. But there are a lot of nations out there that do a significantly better job than us.

"morality"? Sorry... I don't understand that arguement at all... by your bizarre standards most of the nations that have the low levels of gun violence are "less moral" ones, I'd think... or something, I don't get your arguement.

Once again you demonstrate an amazing ignorance. It's not the availabilty of legal guns that is responsible for our high murder rates. It's OUR morality, or lack thereof. We have a humongous drug problem that Europe doesn't have! Bingo, that's a huge reason why we're worse off in the violent crime aspect! We have a lack of discipline as human beings that makes some of us murder for no good reason. People like this RARELY use legal weapons to do their crimes, and this is OBVIOUS.

It is proven. Getting rid of guns reduces crime a lot of crime. Now, sure, it'd be better to do it like Canada and just have a society that just isn't as violent, but we don't have that... but of course that brings up more issues. We do have people who use guns for legitimate purposes, after all... in a perfect world I think that we'd have all handguns (most violence is handguns) and automatic guns and stuff banned, but people would be able to get guns for hunting if they pass the background check... I don't think we could ban those. Not without a more dramatic change in our society than is realistic.

You point it out yourself: It's America's violent tendencies that is responsible. And of course, the point you and all liberals ignore without fail is that most weapons used in criminal activities are illegal to begin with, and if gun laws aren't doing anything to stop THEM, what good would a total ban accomplish, besides preventing the odd accident? Not much, it would just give criminals the peace of mind knowing that they can prey on any innocent, law-abiding person because they know that person isn't carrying a gun themselves.

Look, I'm all for making it VERY hard to obtain a gun legally. I steadfastly believe that only people who meet very certain criteria and have proper training and knowledge should ever own and carry a weapon. But banning legal weapons is a stupid idea and so far in America has been a miserable failure. If one really wants to reduce violence, the drug scene is where it should begin, starting with but certainly not limited to extremely harsh punishment for the so-called 'non-violent offenders', in other words, the drug users who give business to the dealers and cartels who are at the true root of much of our nation's violence, and who quite often cause trouble and violence themselves obtaining money for their habit.

But what would that accomplish? After all, we'd be a peaceful utopia if law-abiding citizens couldn't own guns!

[A Black Falcon]

Once again you demonstrate an amazing ignorance. It's not the availabilty of legal guns that is responsible for our high murder rates. It's OUR morality, or lack thereof. We have a humongous drug problem that Europe doesn't have! Bingo, that's a huge reason why we're worse off in the violent crime aspect! We have a lack of discipline as human beings that makes some of us murder for no good reason. People like this RARELY use legal weapons to do their crimes, and this is OBVIOUS.

Um, this sounds more like an arguement FOR strong controls on guns than against...

I agree about harsh punishments for drug arrests, though. I know many liberals wouldn't, but I do. But all of that just strengthens the anti-gun position... all of those things wouldn't be nearly as bad if these people couldn't so easily get guns to carry out their crimes with!