|
|
| Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling`` (101800) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 9 |
||
|
| (102220) | |
Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling`` |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 10:57:03 2006, in response to Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Peter Rosa on Tue Feb 28 09:40:38 2006. Ha ha, EXCELLENT comeback line! It's Harry's standard comeback, usually reserved for when he wants to bail on shit he mostly starts. It's not that good. |
|
|
| (102222) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Tue Feb 28 10:59:42 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 10:50:10 2006. NOBODY knows what causes sexual orientation ... ANYONE who believes otherwise is "blowing smoke"."Sexual orientation" ... "blowing" ... heh heh. My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (102226) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:08:35 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by JPC on Mon Feb 27 21:29:58 2006. I don't much care for rewarding self-serving "co-operation". |
|
|
| (102227) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:11:07 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by BIE on Mon Feb 27 20:26:11 2006. Hardly. I remember the 70's (at least the Carter 70's). Things are easier today. |
|
|
| (102228) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue Feb 28 11:11:13 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 10:42:34 2006. Sadist's do.Sadists like to give pain, not receive it. You mean masochists. I think we are all born to have natural desires and impulses. Attractiont to the opposite sex is one of these desires. Just because you think it does not mean it's true. At one time it was thought that being left-handed was unnatural. Many thought that people chose to be left-handed to be different. Others also saw it as a mark of the devil. |
|
|
| (102229) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 11:16:15 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by mambomta on Tue Feb 28 11:11:13 2006. lol...I'm left-handed too! |
|
|
| (102230) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Feb 28 11:22:15 2006, in response to Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by aem7ac on Mon Feb 27 09:45:15 2006.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| (102231) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:22:31 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SilverFox on Tue Feb 28 07:08:51 2006. Is that the kind of Rube-Goldberg healthcare you want? Anyone who supports socialized medicine need not look any further to the prescription drug fiasco. Socialized healthcare will kill people. |
|
|
| (102232) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:25:29 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 09:27:12 2006. I don't believe gay people have any choice in the matter. It's not a choice. There's no scientific basis to make that conclusion. I don't think they can control being attracted to men, any more than we are attracted to women (and visa-vera for lesbians). See above. Is there a bisexuality gene? An asexuality gene? Sexuality is not digital, it's incredibly analog. |
|
|
| (102233) | |
Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling`` |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 11:26:13 2006, in response to Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 10:57:03 2006. Who is this man? |
|
|
| (102234) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 11:26:47 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 11:16:15 2006. I am left handed. mambo- thanks for the correction on word usage. |
|
|
| (102235) | |
Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling`` |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:28:17 2006, in response to Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 11:26:13 2006. That no one understands? |
|
|
| (102236) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:29:19 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:13:43 2006. Neither one of you can prove the other wrong. |
|
|
| (102237) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:31:28 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:37:32 2006. That's not a valid argument. The obvious answer would be yes, if it's a choice, since millions have chosen to do so. |
|
|
| (102238) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Line 13 on Tue Feb 28 11:33:14 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Feb 28 11:22:15 2006. Nice graph! |
|
|
| (102239) | |
Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling`` |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 11:36:32 2006, in response to Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:28:17 2006. No, the one who lost his job as a mailroom employee and is still unemployed. |
|
|
| (102240) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 11:37:21 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:31:28 2006. The choice only comes in if they choose to be "out", or active. I really don't think they can control being aroused over seeing a man any more than I can control being aroused over seeing a woman. Why would anyone "choose" to be attracted to men (or the opposite form lesbians), and all the negative things that will come along with a life like that.I used to work with a gay guy in my old job, and he said he had the feelings even before he was a teenager. How can they control that, any more than a normal teenage boy can control being attracted to women? |
|
|
| (102241) | |
Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling`` |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:37:39 2006, in response to Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 11:36:32 2006. I guess the boy just can't help it. BTW, don't you have work to do? |
|
|
| (102243) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Feb 28 11:39:11 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Line 13 on Tue Feb 28 11:33:14 2006. Thanks! Doesn't show much correlation with party politics though! |
|
|
| (102245) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:40:35 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 11:37:21 2006. You've been indoctrinated into an ideology which does not have any scientific basis to exist. The origins of what makes someone homosexual are really unknown. It may not be a choice, but then again, many personality traits aren't choices, and neither are mental conditions (not that homosexuality is a mental disease). It doesn't have to be choice or biology. |
|
|
| (102247) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 11:41:46 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:25:29 2006. Is there a bisexuality gene?I believe there's some "chemical" thing that makes gays gay, however, I don't believe in that bisexual nonsense. I think anyone who says they are bisexusal is really gay, but doesn't want to admit it. |
|
|
| (102248) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:41:47 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Feb 28 11:39:11 2006. That's good. It means you're a free thinker. |
|
|
| (102249) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:43:23 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 11:41:46 2006. You can believe anything you want. Unfortunatley, science requires more than feeling or instinct. |
|
|
| (102250) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 11:43:32 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Feb 28 11:22:15 2006. Aaah, you said Subtalkers not Subchatters . . . we've moved on, y'know. |
|
|
| (102251) | |
Re: B7 4 BklynIND, the king of trolling |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 11:44:45 2006, in response to Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 10:34:33 2006. That was a lamer line. We all work, but we all don't have to kiss boss' caboose, which ur demeanor makes it sound like you do . . . |
|
|
| (102252) | |
Re: B7 4 BklynIND the king of trolling |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 11:45:54 2006, in response to Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:37:39 2006. Only work he's gotta do is taking care of the BF . . . |
|
|
| (102253) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 11:48:04 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:40:35 2006. but then again, many personality traits aren't choices, and neither are mental conditions (not that homosexuality is a mental disease). It doesn't have to be choice or biology.I can agree with that, but have to say whatever it is that causes it is out of the control of the person. |
|
|
| (102254) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 11:49:19 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:53:08 2006. But definitely in the closet. |
|
|
| (102257) | |
Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling`` |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 11:50:49 2006, in response to Re: Olog-Hai, the king of trolling``, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 10:57:03 2006. ***T*R*U*T*H*** |
|
|
| (102260) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 11:53:16 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:22:31 2006. You mean Part D? |
|
|
| (102267) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:58:43 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 28 11:48:04 2006. My personal belief is that sexual orientation is just another aspect to one's personality. It's formed in childhood. It's not something someone can change freely by conscience choice. But it's not genetic. This debate is driven by politics. Many gay rights activists feel that if sexual orientation is genetic, they can claim the same civil rights that are given to those of differing races and genders. I don't buy into that. Regardless of the cause, homosexuals deserve equal consideration under the law. |
|
|
| (102270) | |
Re: B7 4 BklynIND the king of trolling |
|
|
Posted by Brooklyn IND on Tue Feb 28 12:04:34 2006, in response to Re: B7 4 BklynIND the king of trolling, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 11:45:54 2006. You seem to be fixated on the meritless idea that I am a homosexual. |
|
|
| (102272) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 12:07:20 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Feb 28 10:14:54 2006. I like Chris Rocks's comment: "Let them get married, they can be as miserable as the rest of us."Priceless!! |
|
|
| (102287) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 13:37:00 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 11:11:07 2006. Shoot, I remember drinking powdered milk at home because we couldn't buy the real thing in the 70's. When I see all these "poor" folks today with their new Ipods I wonder how they'd survive if times got really tough. |
|
|
| (102288) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 13:45:09 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 00:12:02 2006. TWTTINNo hablo whatever language that is! Nike may make (may have made) obscene margins on selling price over the cost of production on many of their shoes -- but they didn't make obscene profits. They spent plenty of money on marketing and celebrity endorsements down to the point that their profits were in the 15-25% return range. Still plenty -- but not 1000% by any stretch. On the other hand, their celebrity endorsers (one Mr. Jordan comes to mind) did make outrageous fees -- occasionally on the backs or even bodies of teenaged children. That all being said, I'm no fan of Nike. I was a Nike devotee in the 80's when I ran competitively (they made the best sprinter's spikes by far), and still wear their running shoes today (for my slow out-of-shape jogs). I find their actions in promoting wildly expensive shoes to those who often can least afford them to be irresponsible at best. |
|
|
| (102289) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 13:46:46 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 13:45:09 2006. PROFF? |
|
|
| (102290) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Feb 28 13:47:07 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Feb 28 10:50:10 2006. The various religions are wrong about the "cause"Explain. |
|
|
| (102291) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 13:54:53 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Andrew Kirschner on Mon Feb 27 23:47:25 2006. Do you mean the requirements of social security would have cancelled out the surplus.That's exactly what I'm saying. As respects both parties contributing to the late 90's surpluses, I agree completely with a qualifier. Bill Clinton contributed to that -- but it was without the support of much of his party. I don't think one can really say that the entire Democratic party was behind the actions needed to balance the budget in the late 90's because huge factions of the party wanted to cut off Clinton's head for even thinking about it. It wasn't until Clinton's problems with Ms. Lewinsky became public that the Democrats really re-rallied around their president. As respects needing a divergence of leadership in the House/Senate/White House in order to control spending, I generally agree again. There is a small handful of people on both sides who I see as being so economically disciplined that as president they would contain spending even if their own party were in power. Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, Joe Lieberman -- possibly a few others, but I can't think of them immediately. |
|
|
| (102292) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 14:05:44 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 13:46:46 2006. Nike's stock price in 1990 (split adjusted) - $10Nike's stock price today - $87 Annual return -- 14.4% Annual return including approximately 2% dividend yield -- 16.4% Even if you throw out the last 8 years when the company hasn't made much of anything, they aren't anywhere near 1000% Nike's stock price in 1990 (split adjusted) - $10 Nike's stock price in 1998 - $84 Annual return -- 30.5% Annual return including approximately 2% dividend yield -- 32.5% How about some PROFF for the 1000% returns you've cited? |
|
|
| (102293) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 14:07:17 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 13:46:46 2006. That's how Michael Jordan got RICH. As much money as the NBA pays their athletes, the "Shoe" money is the BIG money. |
|
|
| (102294) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 14:07:57 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 13:54:53 2006. As respects both parties contributing to the late 90's surpluses, I agree completely with a qualifier. Bill Clinton contributed to that -- but it was without the support of much of his party. I don't think one can really say that the entire Democratic party was behind the actions needed to balance the budget in the late 90's because huge factions of the party wanted to cut off Clinton's head for even thinking about it. This is yet another thing Clinton gets credit for, credit for which he doesn't deserve. The balancing of the budget in the 1990's came at a huge price, that of extreme cuts to defense spending. Clinton had the luxury of doing so because he inherited a presidency after the Cold War, and before the War on Terror. |
|
|
| (102295) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE) |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Tue Feb 28 14:08:09 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE), posted by Brooklyn IND on Mon Feb 27 21:55:22 2006. Brooklyn IND: Who cares. |
|
|
| (102296) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 14:08:36 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 14:05:44 2006. Stock prices aren't the total picture when it comes to revenues. How about those undisclosed executive salaries . . . ? Unreported overseas investments? You're showing me the bones that Nike throws its investors, not what its top dogs make. |
|
|
| (102297) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Feb 28 14:09:45 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 13:54:53 2006. Steve Forbes has interesting ideas. One rightie I'd like to discuss policy with. |
|
|
| (102298) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 14:11:02 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 28 14:08:36 2006. Further, you can get returns like that when you base your manufacturing in the USA. Keeping the money out of the country with the overseas manufacturing is therefore inexcusable. |
|
|
| (102299) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 14:11:14 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance (UPDATE), posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 27 22:15:32 2006. Against us. You know, Nixon had an enemy's list, too. |
|
|
| (102300) | |
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 14:20:15 2006, in response to Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Charles G on Tue Feb 28 13:37:00 2006. My father was unemployed (for the only time I can ever recall) in the winter of 1977. We couldn't afford heating oil. I remember watching TV in the kitchen with the oven on and sleeping in my jacket. I remember seeing my mother wash our clothes in the kitchen sink, by hand. I remember being happy to see a piece of cake sent over by some neighbors who took pity on us. |
|
|
| (102302) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 14:24:32 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Dand124 on Tue Feb 28 01:45:40 2006. A very libertarian combination. |
|
|
| (102303) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Tue Feb 28 14:28:46 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 14:24:32 2006. Call me libertarian then, cuz those are my views as well. I actually have a lot in common with Silverfox.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (102304) | |
Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 28 14:35:40 2006, in response to Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance, posted by Fred G on Tue Feb 28 14:28:46 2006. It wasn't an insult. I'm quite libertarian myself. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 9 |
||