Because you're an easy mark. 

He's rational with panda.  He blocked me because I turned his dumbassery around on him. 

Posted by swamphawk22 on 6/3/2011 2:00:00 AM (view original):
I was wrong about Jclark. I was think ing about someone else.

As I said Anton never contests my points when the evidence is fresh but he has attacked other cons.

And if not then why me? What is so speacial about me? It is just that he cannot intimidate me with his arrogant attitude.

1) In other words, you lied. Given that you think you have this massive feud with me, it's not plausible that you'd mistake me for another user.

2) Another lie. I challenge your "anton treats all cons the same" lie every time I notice you repeating it.

3) I've told you more times than I care to, and you ignore the answer every time. Go back and read what I wrote the last six dozen times you whined/asked that question.

1 I didnt mistake you, I mistaked Jclark.

2 So I am going to start documenting your actions so I can prove this when you bring it up a few months later.

3 No...you have never explained it in any real way. I asked you if Rush, Coulter or Beck would be treated different by you and you turned it around into how they would treat me. I say there is nothing different than me and them. And you would be giving them the Fucktard in a few days.

The discussion you are having with Silentpadna over the Atlanta school issue is a good example of what you will do with cons. You are having a very defined discussion about the reason the Atlanta SC made their decision. There is some L vs R in what they used to make the decision, but the conversation is very limited. The isuse should be what is the motivation behind it and how will this impact kids in Atlanta and in the rest of the nation. By having a small area of discussion you avoid dealing with the real issue. This is the kind of discussion you will have with Cons.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 6/3/2011 1:00:00 PM (view original):
1 I didnt mistake you, I mistaked Jclark.

2 So I am going to start documenting your actions so I can prove this when you bring it up a few months later.

3 No...you have never explained it in any real way. I asked you if Rush, Coulter or Beck would be treated different by you and you turned it around into how they would treat me. I say there is nothing different than me and them. And you would be giving them the Fucktard in a few days.

The discussion you are having with Silentpadna over the Atlanta school issue is a good example of what you will do with cons. You are having a very defined discussion about the reason the Atlanta SC made their decision. There is some L vs R in what they used to make the decision, but the conversation is very limited. The isuse should be what is the motivation behind it and how will this impact kids in Atlanta and in the rest of the nation. By having a small area of discussion you avoid dealing with the real issue. This is the kind of discussion you will have with Cons.

1) Bullshit. You're just lying, again.

2) No you won't, because they don't exist. But I will remember this post next time you lie about me attacking all conservatives.

3) That was approximately the 63rd time you'd made that particular lie, and I tired of answering it so I had fun with it instead.

4) So me having a reasonable discussion with padna about the specifics of the case he brought up is proof that, what... I don't view issues purely through your bullshit, binary, artificial Left vs Right pinhole? Fine, guilty as charged. I don't wear your blinders. That's a plus for me, not a minus.

Only swamp could think you are avoiding the issue by discussing the specifics of the issue. I guess the only way to have a real debate is to hurl slogans and soundbytes at each other, and whoever lasts the longest "wins." I can't imagine why anyone would think him an idiot.

Posted by genghisxcon on 6/3/2011 4:43:00 PM (view original):
Only swamp could think you are avoiding the issue by discussing the specifics of the issue. I guess the only way to have a real debate is to hurl slogans and soundbytes at each other, and whoever lasts the longest "wins." I can't imagine why anyone would think him an idiot.

He isnt avoiding an issue by discussing the specifics.

Lets say the issue is the NY Mets. Lets say 2 guys just talk about their batting average all day. That is ignoring the big picture by discussing a much smaller issue.

And the real point is...That is what Anton will discuss with Conservatives. Not about real issues.

OK, fine, I'll play. What "issue" am I avoiding, swamp?

The big picture. You guys were discussing the reasons for a state supreme court decision.

The big picture is how should charter schools work. How is the current system fighting change.

Or even bigger. What is wrong with the current education system  and how to fix it.

In other words, if I don't discuss exactly what you want to discuss, in exactly the way you want to discuss it, I'm "avoiding the issue". Got it. Also, **** off.

You can discuss anything you want.

You cannot use a very narrow discussion as the basis for you talking to Conservatives.

If anyone came on here and said....

1 The Bush tax cuts not only helped the American economy but also didnt add to the deficit.

2 The Obama stimulus plan was a disaster because the programs were to agenda driven.

3 Defending traditional marriage isnt a civil rights issue and should be left to state voters and DOMA supports that belief.

You would attack them. These are mainstream Conservative beliefs. It wouldnt take too long for you to brand them stupid.

You just can't stop lying.

I'd disagree with them on those points. if they presented their viewpoints and counterpoints honestly -- which you have never done -- I wouldn't attack them.

You have never been able to provide a single shred of evidence to support your lie that I treat other conservatives the same as I treat you. Not one post.

You're a liar, swamp. A compulsive, pathetic liar.

Posted by antonsirius on 6/5/2011 3:34:00 PM (view original):
You just can't stop lying.

I'd disagree with them on those points. if they presented their viewpoints and counterpoints honestly -- which you have never done -- I wouldn't attack them.

You have never been able to provide a single shred of evidence to support your lie that I treat other conservatives the same as I treat you. Not one post.

You're a liar, swamp. A compulsive, pathetic liar.

1 So just to review...if I presented my counterpoints in a more logical way I would no longer be a lying fucktard?

2 You treat all Conservatives bad. You treat me in a special way because of our feud.

1 Not logical. Honest. A completely foreign concept to you.

2 Another lie. **** off, liar.

Posted by antonsirius on 6/5/2011 3:51:00 PM (view original):
1 Not logical. Honest. A completely foreign concept to you.

2 Another lie. **** off, liar.

Honest?

Since you define a lie as being wrong and you think I am wrong about my Conservative views I cannot, by your definition, be honest!

Another lie, as per usual.