Lelouch24 Posts
[color=#2e1a6b]If 2012 does happen, it'll be caused by a worldwide financial collapse. But that probably won't happen until a few more years
[color=#2e1a6b]Nyaatorrents is the only site with ads that I don't hate, everyone else is adblocked
For example:
For example:
Kadushy wrote...
https://www.fakku.net/viewforum.php?f=60
[color=#2e1a6b]How'd you find this page? I can't find a link to this forum page anywhere
[color=#2e1a6b]It doesn't look like this is what your talking about, but I'll say this anyways:
In general, a person's life must be valued very highly. It is something that we must strive to protect and preserve. When a society abandons this principle and says that not everyone's life is of value, that society becomes willing terminate that "worthless" life whenever it sees fit. What if we thought that newborn babies had no worth? What if we thought that old people had no worth? These ideas have been brought forth to our society as a direct result of not acknowledging the worth of a person.
In general, a person's life must be valued very highly. It is something that we must strive to protect and preserve. When a society abandons this principle and says that not everyone's life is of value, that society becomes willing terminate that "worthless" life whenever it sees fit. What if we thought that newborn babies had no worth? What if we thought that old people had no worth? These ideas have been brought forth to our society as a direct result of not acknowledging the worth of a person.
[color=#2e1a6b]I have a little sister that's such a spoiled brat, so I'm a little hesitant to choose imouto. I probably would have a better time with an Onee-san, but a better relationship with an Imouto
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't think I've ever seen decensorship that looked better. There's certainly a lot of excessive censorship that I hate, but the redrawing looks so bad that I'd rather it stayed covered up. That way I can at least imagine that it looks nice
Lishy1 wrote...
Though to be fair, I do agree on equal rights for gays... The real question is why marriage is a federal issue instead of civil? Why is the government involved at all?
[color=#2e1a6b]I never understood how gay marriage is such an issue. From what I understand, a civil union grants all the privileges that a marriage does, it just uses a different word. I never hear any outcry against civil unions, so... it seems like the whole "gay marriage" issue is just a fight over a name. Seems pretty mundane to me, and completely unnecessary for the government to be involved in.
I don't have time to address all these, so I'll just hope someone else in the thread does it for me.
[color=#2e1a6b]That's the same guy that said
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not wasting my time with him
[color=#2e1a6b]Ron Paul - 92%
on domestic policy, economic, healthcare, foreign policy, immigration, and social issues.
Gary Johnson - 90%
on domestic policy, economic, foreign policy, and healthcare issues.
Mitt Romney - 76%
on domestic policy, economic, immigration, healthcare, and social issues.
Barrack Obama - 21%
no major issues.
92% Libertarian, 76% Republican, 33% Green, 21% Democratic
I think Romney is so high because he hardly answers any questions meaningfully, which made most of his answers "similar" to mine
on domestic policy, economic, healthcare, foreign policy, immigration, and social issues.
Gary Johnson - 90%
on domestic policy, economic, foreign policy, and healthcare issues.
Mitt Romney - 76%
on domestic policy, economic, immigration, healthcare, and social issues.
Barrack Obama - 21%
no major issues.
92% Libertarian, 76% Republican, 33% Green, 21% Democratic
I think Romney is so high because he hardly answers any questions meaningfully, which made most of his answers "similar" to mine
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm taking care of my great aunt right now who just had depression. In her case, the depression came suddenly, right after she had surgery on her leg. We suspect that some post-surgery medications caused it. She went back to her old self again after about 10 days.
No major events happened that would cause my aunt to lose happiness, and nothing happened 10 days later that would cause her to get it back. This leads me to believe that depression can be caused by something other than the absence of happiness.
No major events happened that would cause my aunt to lose happiness, and nothing happened 10 days later that would cause her to get it back. This leads me to believe that depression can be caused by something other than the absence of happiness.
lordisgaea4 wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
Obama isn't even an eligible president. The birth certificate he took forever to release was a forgery I have a question , since you debated so hard on this , it must be important ? So what does that change if he is or not american ?
[color=#2e1a6b]well, In the US constitution:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm claiming I was claiming that because Obama released a forged birth certificate, he hasn't proved that he was a natural born citizen, thus ineligible for president. But to be honest, It really doesn't matter that much, since the 2 candidates in the upcoming election are pretty much identical.
I would much rather have had Obama impeached under Mr. Jones' house resolution 107
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]Youtube comments are so messy :/You labeled me as a birther, and posted tons of evidence against claims that birthers make, even though I never made those claims. I hadn't even heard of the word "Birther", until you used it to describe me. I realize now that this is causing confusion. You attribute birthers to be making claims such as "his mother was too young" or "we have his kenyan birth certificate". If these claims are attributed to "birthers", then I'm not a birther. When you say that "I posted tons of evidence against you", you are only saying that you posted tons of evidence against birthers (a label I don't attribute myself to). I only made one claim, and you haven't posted evidence that disproves the only claim I made:
The birth certificate released by Obama is a forgery. Because of this, he is not eligible for president.
And about Ad Hominem: this from the wiki page that you laughed at me for linking to
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
1. You are a 'birther' because a 'birther' is anyone who believes Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States, which you've said is the fact of the matter.
[color=#2e1a6b]I never claimed he wasn't a natural born citizen. I claimed he was an ineligible president because he released a fraudulent birth certificate. The most likely reason for this is because he is not a natural born citizen, however, I am open to other reasons as to why he released a forged certificate.
2. The only evidence I need is Wisch, as I stated earlier, declaring the Sheriff's police department as a bunch of liars(which is consistent with their history and other evidence, one of which hwas a youtube video I linked to you in the comments section of youtube)and that the people responsible for monitoring this shit have verified that Obama's birth certificate is valid.
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't see why Wisch has any more authority to call him a liar than you do. It's still Ad Hominem
And how did they verify that it was valid? source?
3. Please read your own source. "This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false;" which I never said. So again, your accusation of ad hom is invalid.
What I instead pointed out was simply that if someone is known for being racist and bias against people they perceive to be illegal immigrants, then their investigations of the birth certificate of a black man and declaring it to be fraudulent are suspect.
What I instead pointed out was simply that if someone is known for being racist and bias against people they perceive to be illegal immigrants, then their investigations of the birth certificate of a black man and declaring it to be fraudulent are suspect.
[color=#2e1a6b]So, why is the sheriff's argument false? is it because he is "known for being racist and bias against people they perceive to be illegal immigrants"?
If the answer is yes, then that is exactly what an Ad Hominem is
And I am in no way required, nor is anyone else, to consider their 'investigation' seriously until further evidence presents itself. They're not necessarily WRONG, I never said they were, I said that they haven't provided near enough evidence. Also, I really love how every single post you make keep ignoring when I point out that if you accept Obama is not a U.S. president, you must accept a vast number of other things about reality you have no evidence for. You refuse to address this issue, and it's really very entertaining how much you dodge the issue.
[color=#2e1a6b]Not much conspiracy is required. You already admitted that no one cares or takes it seriously. All that would have to happen is Obama to forge a birth certificate, and to have any challenge against it dismissed. They'd have to hide evidence that would prove whether or not it was valid, such as the Kapiolani medical center's logbook, or an unaltered scan.
[color=#2e1a6b]EDIT:
This is really a waste of time for both of us. It's not gonna get a court hearing, and even if does and he's ineligible, Obama's clone Romney will get into office. we're both wasting too much time debating about such a mundane issue
[color=#2e1a6b]Youtube comments are so messy :/
You labeled me as a birther, and posted tons of evidence against claims that birthers make, even though I never made those claims. I hadn't even heard of the word "Birther", until you used it to describe me. I realize now that this is causing confusion. You attribute birthers to be making claims such as "his mother was too young" or "we have his kenyan birth certificate". If these claims are attributed to "birthers", then I'm not a birther. When you say that "I posted tons of evidence against you", you are only saying that you posted tons of evidence against birthers (a label I don't attribute myself to). I only made one claim, and you haven't posted evidence that disproves the only claim I made:
The birth certificate released by Obama is a forgery. Because of this, he is not eligible for president.
If you think you already did provide evidence, then just copy-paste the links straight here.
And about Ad Hominem: this from the wiki page that you laughed at me for linking to
You labeled me as a birther, and posted tons of evidence against claims that birthers make, even though I never made those claims. I hadn't even heard of the word "Birther", until you used it to describe me. I realize now that this is causing confusion. You attribute birthers to be making claims such as "his mother was too young" or "we have his kenyan birth certificate". If these claims are attributed to "birthers", then I'm not a birther. When you say that "I posted tons of evidence against you", you are only saying that you posted tons of evidence against birthers (a label I don't attribute myself to). I only made one claim, and you haven't posted evidence that disproves the only claim I made:
The birth certificate released by Obama is a forgery. Because of this, he is not eligible for president.
If you think you already did provide evidence, then just copy-paste the links straight here.
And about Ad Hominem: this from the wiki page that you laughed at me for linking to
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
shitI decided to give you a second chance. I'll pretend that I never read your post, and you can start over without looking like a fucking douche. You can even delete that post if you want (and I'll delete this section of this post).
It is painfully obvious that you didn't look at ANY of the evidence I posted. I understand that you would not want to watch a video over an hour long, but if you're gonna shit on me for it, you gotta look at the evidence I referenced.
I'm gonna actually help you out with this: Here are the specific parts of the video that you must watch before attempting to respond to my position:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Ngv16UQAA#t=7m60s to 10:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Ngv16UQAA#t=16m31s to 19:13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Ngv16UQAA#t=21m14s to 24:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Ngv16UQAA#t=35m9s to 35:46
(I find the 3rd link to be most interesting)
Did you read any of my links?
[color=#2e1a6b]yeah... and they had nothing to with the defending the released birth certificate. Instead, they were responding to other accusations that I was not making.
Because I already told you I know of the video, I know of the sheriff, Arizona Sheriffs are notoriously racist, so there's an inherent bias in the man's evaluation
[color=#2e1a6b]ooh, Ad hominem *clap *clap
So, instead of going over the evidence in each section of the video (each link is right there), you decide disregard it on the basis of Ad Hominum. Fantastic.
How about you actually address this evidence.
this exact same 'evidence' has been attempted to be used in court, and systematically failed.
[color=#2e1a6b]What? The investigators just discovered this evidence a few months ago. There hasn't been a court ruling that this evidence is insufficient (at least that I'm aware of).
I would rather you respond to the content of my post, instead of restate your opinion as if I simply couldn't have read it and investigated it, and understood it, and then disagreed with your conclusion rationally.
[color=#2e1a6b]What do you mean? Your post was irrelevent links, followed by you saying "Some arizona sheriff says it's a forgery and you just believe him?"[color=#2e1a6b], followed by a straw man argument.
There wasn't much to respond to, so I figured it'd be best to start fresh.
I recommend the third link I provided, Politifact. They fact check this bullshit all the time.
[color=#2e1a6b]I looked through the list of articles, but none of them disproved the claim that the birth certificate was a forgery.
Also, concerning this bullshit, there was a response by Joshua A Wisch, assistant to the Hawaii Attorny General stated, in response to this nonsense, "President Obama was born in Honolulu, and his birth certificate is valid."
Wisch also said that “not only are Hawaii’s vital records some of the best managed, but they also have some of the strongest restrictions on access to prevent identity theft and fraud.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78645.html#ixzz22AbDc0b5
Wisch also said that “not only are Hawaii’s vital records some of the best managed, but they also have some of the strongest restrictions on access to prevent identity theft and fraud.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78645.html#ixzz22AbDc0b5
[color=#2e1a6b]How the fuck does this prove that it's valid?
So...he's just part of the conspiracy you're saying?
Bill O Reilly's part of the conspiracy?
Where does it end?
Bill O Reilly's part of the conspiracy?
Where does it end?
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm am really sick of hearing people basically make the argument "I can disprove your claim by calling it a conspiracy theory". Even your best friend hates this argument
BigLundi wrote...
shit[color=#2e1a6b]I decided to give you a second chance. I'll pretend that I never read your post, and you can start over without looking like a fucking douche. You can even delete that post if you want (and I'll delete this section of this post).
It is painfully obvious that you didn't look at ANY of the evidence I posted. I understand that you would not want to watch a video over an hour long, but if you're gonna shit on me for it, you gotta look at the evidence I referenced.
I'm actually gonna help you out with this: Here are the specific parts of the video that you must watch before attempting to respond to my position:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Ngv16UQAA#t=7m60s to 10:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Ngv16UQAA#t=16m31s to 19:13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Ngv16UQAA#t=21m14s to 24:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Ngv16UQAA#t=35m9s to 35:46
(I find the 3rd link to be most interesting)
