User talk:RobSmith
- User talk:RobSmith/Archive 01
- User talk:RobSmith/Archive 02
- User talk:RobSmith/Archive 03
- User talk:RobSmith/Archive 04
- User talk:RobSmith/Archive 05
- User talk:RobSmith/Archive 06
[edit] A little reading material that we can discuss when you return
Fucking third world. Acei9 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- the idea that the United States is the envy of the world when it comes to free markets and business? Wrong .
- Yep. see what the goddam commies did when they took over the government, schools, and teacher unions? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 05:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- NZ is much further to the left than the US yet better in nearly every metric. Acei9 05:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well sure. NZ hasn't had the burden of global security on its shoulders. So what else is there to do other than drink and watch the daisies grow?nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 05:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)- Pardon my snarkiness. We should turn this into something productive. It seems that nutbag Ron Paul's proposal was prophetic: a German court has ordered an accounting of its gold held in the United States. Looking at that chart, I decided to peek at NZ's. Now, if we can understand what's going on here, maybe it will help when the time comes (soon) to write re-Ron Paul's article. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 05:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah - nothing to do with the conversation at hand. So your so called 'third world NZ' is better than the US by nearly every metric you can name and has a more progressive government which is further to left than your democrats. Check mate, Smith. Acei9 05:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with the conversation at hand? New Zealand's Central bank gold reserves are bone dry and your trying to convince somebody NZ has a stable economy and a high standard of living. Let me tell you what an empty vault means in this era of extended global recession: (1) NZ doesn't have a fucking dime to its name to show for its many generations of hard work; (2) NZ doesn't have the collateral to put up to borrow foreign money for private sectgor investment or government operating deficits; (3) NZ is not the place the rest of the world considers safe, secure, or a good place to invest (create jobs) in or just hoard cash. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend
- For all your gold we beat the shit out the US in business freedom, education, health etc etc etc. Ho ho ho. Acei9 06:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Business freedom? there's a limit to how much goat cheese Japan want's to buy. The rest is wp:parochial intrests or just plain inbreeding. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 06:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry the USA is such a backward place. Acei9 06:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. We are progressively moving backwards. Hg nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- No your not - Barack Obama is further to the right than any NZ party. We have been over this Rob, don't be daft. Acei9 18:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not. I'm asking if you wish to put forward a rational explanation why NZ'z Central bank gold reserves are depleted so when the Ron Paul article get's updated (per this and this we can work together. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend
- So in light of NZ being a significantly better place to live and work than the US all you have got is "Yeah - but we have more gold". Gold is not relevant to this discussion, Smith. Acei9 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- NO. We don't have more gold. All the gold mined in existence since ancient Eygpt only amounts to 7 months total annual output of the United States, And as everyone knows, the US. Govt. is in debt to 12 months total annual output (let 'splain in simple terms you can understand: the U.S govt owes alomst twice as much money as the total value of all gold ever mined in existence). Now NZ's debt, output, and reserves are just a pitance of all gold ever mined, but the governing principles are the same. Comparinng living stanrds or politcal ideologies IMO are extraneous. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 00:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- you were the one trying to argue NZ was third world, knob-end. Now that nz has been shown to be fully superior to the USA you decide that discussions on living standards are extraneous? You fool. Acei9 00:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- What happened to NZ's gold? how long do thing NZ can keep up the veneer of a 21st century civilized country if they collaterized the gold to purchase the veneer of a modern nation with and can't repay the debt? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- you were the one trying to argue NZ was third world, knob-end. Now that nz has been shown to be fully superior to the USA you decide that discussions on living standards are extraneous? You fool. Acei9 00:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- NO. We don't have more gold. All the gold mined in existence since ancient Eygpt only amounts to 7 months total annual output of the United States, And as everyone knows, the US. Govt. is in debt to 12 months total annual output (let 'splain in simple terms you can understand: the U.S govt owes alomst twice as much money as the total value of all gold ever mined in existence). Now NZ's debt, output, and reserves are just a pitance of all gold ever mined, but the governing principles are the same. Comparinng living stanrds or politcal ideologies IMO are extraneous. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 00:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- So in light of NZ being a significantly better place to live and work than the US all you have got is "Yeah - but we have more gold". Gold is not relevant to this discussion, Smith. Acei9 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not. I'm asking if you wish to put forward a rational explanation why NZ'z Central bank gold reserves are depleted so when the Ron Paul article get's updated (per this and this we can work together. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend
- No your not - Barack Obama is further to the right than any NZ party. We have been over this Rob, don't be daft. Acei9 18:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. We are progressively moving backwards. Hg nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry the USA is such a backward place. Acei9 06:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Business freedom? there's a limit to how much goat cheese Japan want's to buy. The rest is wp:parochial intrests or just plain inbreeding. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 06:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- For all your gold we beat the shit out the US in business freedom, education, health etc etc etc. Ho ho ho. Acei9 06:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with the conversation at hand? New Zealand's Central bank gold reserves are bone dry and your trying to convince somebody NZ has a stable economy and a high standard of living. Let me tell you what an empty vault means in this era of extended global recession: (1) NZ doesn't have a fucking dime to its name to show for its many generations of hard work; (2) NZ doesn't have the collateral to put up to borrow foreign money for private sectgor investment or government operating deficits; (3) NZ is not the place the rest of the world considers safe, secure, or a good place to invest (create jobs) in or just hoard cash. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend
- Yeah - nothing to do with the conversation at hand. So your so called 'third world NZ' is better than the US by nearly every metric you can name and has a more progressive government which is further to left than your democrats. Check mate, Smith. Acei9 05:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- NZ is much further to the left than the US yet better in nearly every metric. Acei9 05:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. see what the goddam commies did when they took over the government, schools, and teacher unions? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 05:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Can I assume that you voted for Ms. Brown?
Or at least her party? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, is there no end to these fuckheads?
Генгисunbelieving
19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just heard something about that on the radio. My guess is she's trying to tighten the rape and incest loophole before any states regulations on abortion get pessed, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. I've been more interested in following this on going scandal regarding conflict of interest and double dipping by the Democratic Majority Leader (I don't think this article says she's the party leader). nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 00:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- An "ongoing scandal" POSTED AT 3:00 PM ON DECEMBER 17, 2011? (all caps in original). Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. The
bitchlegislature's Democratic Leader is still double dipping out of government couifers while she takes a paid leave of absence from the public schools to serve in the legislature, and vote herself a pay raise in both positions. What? did you expect our elected legislators to reform this abuse? or an ethics probe by a subcommittee she appointed to investigate? And we haven't even discussed the union aspects of this crap, either. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)- Nice anti-woman blast there, Robbie. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- You read the link. The corrupt Democrtic Majority Leader is a racist scum. And she's African-American, too. What an example to our children. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't read the link. I stopped when I saw you were trying to pass off a story more than a year old as "news." None of that excuses using a gendered insult, though. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is that all you can bitch about now? Typically off topic. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Off topic? I started a thread about a piece of anti-abortion legislation that happened today, and you replied with something about God-knows-what from more than a year ago that is completely unrelated except that it also took place in New Mexico. You are dense, Robbie. Dense. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- You posted a link about an obscure state rep from some backwater who's legislative proposals are going nowhere in a Democratically controlled legislature, and asking me if I voted for anyone of the same party; I responded with a link about unethical behavior and corruption of the person Democratic state legislators elected as their leader. You're as dense as molasses, or used reconstituted motor oil, at least. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. Is that really how your "brain" "works"? Let me ask you something -- how old are you? I'm beginning to suspect that you may have taken too much of the brown acid back in the day, and it messed with your cognitive skills. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll bite. You're link and discussion presumably was related to (a) some nutbag's ill-considered legistaltive proposal; and (b) the fact that she evidently was elected on the GOP ticket. And this, in your mind, means that anyone who votes Republican likewise thinks that more women would be crying rape if abortions are banned. Hence logically, voting for a racist corrupt Democratic (or at least a Democratric legislator who will elect a racist corrupt leader as spokesman for the party) is the rational thing to do. Is that it? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. Is that really how your "brain" "works"? Let me ask you something -- how old are you? I'm beginning to suspect that you may have taken too much of the brown acid back in the day, and it messed with your cognitive skills. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- You posted a link about an obscure state rep from some backwater who's legislative proposals are going nowhere in a Democratically controlled legislature, and asking me if I voted for anyone of the same party; I responded with a link about unethical behavior and corruption of the person Democratic state legislators elected as their leader. You're as dense as molasses, or used reconstituted motor oil, at least. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Off topic? I started a thread about a piece of anti-abortion legislation that happened today, and you replied with something about God-knows-what from more than a year ago that is completely unrelated except that it also took place in New Mexico. You are dense, Robbie. Dense. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is that all you can bitch about now? Typically off topic. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't read the link. I stopped when I saw you were trying to pass off a story more than a year old as "news." None of that excuses using a gendered insult, though. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- You read the link. The corrupt Democrtic Majority Leader is a racist scum. And she's African-American, too. What an example to our children. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nice anti-woman blast there, Robbie. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. The
- An "ongoing scandal" POSTED AT 3:00 PM ON DECEMBER 17, 2011? (all caps in original). Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Just heard something about that on the radio. My guess is she's trying to tighten the rape and incest loophole before any states regulations on abortion get pessed, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. I've been more interested in following this on going scandal regarding conflict of interest and double dipping by the Democratic Majority Leader (I don't think this article says she's the party leader). nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 00:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
. Wow. Did you actually put the words "women crying rape" into print and then hit "save page???" That bit of horrific misogyny aside, how the hell could I have been thinking about how it would be better to vote for " a racist corrupt Democratic... legislator" when I'd not ever heard of that story, and still don't really know what the hell you're talking about? So no, that's not it. Here is what "it" is, in small words. 1. An elected official in New Mexico came up with a horrible bit of anti-woman legislation. 2. She is a Republican. 3. You live in New Mexico. 4. It would not surprise me if you voted Republican. 5. Therefore, I was curious if you supported this bit of legislation. 6. You still have not commented on the legislation which is the subject of this thread. 7. You've gone off on an unrelated tangent. 8. And managed to imply that you think women who are the victims of serious crime are "crying rape." 9. and that women who are accused of doing bad things are "bitches." 10. I do not find nos. 8 or 9 to surprising. 11. Let me repeat, I had, and still have, no knowledge of the scandal that you would rather discuss so 12. any comparison between the two cases is your comparison, not an attempt on my part to argue about which electoral choice is more "rational." Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 03:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- So that is what wp:To Kill A Mockingbird is about -- misogyny. Thanks for clearly articulating that about one the greatest American books and films of all time. Now specifically to Point 5: I was curious if you supported this bit of legislation. Fat chance, consdidering the corrupt Democratic Majority Leader is too busy lining her own pockets from the public treasury while engaging in racist attacks against the Chief Executive, she will never allow it to come to the floor for debate and a vote. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 04:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rob, you better pray the return on involuntary institution backed by some Conservative groups doesn't pass or you're gonna find yourself wearing one of those cool jackets with sleeves that tie in the back within a week. SirChuckBPenguin Knight, First Class 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rob, you still haven't answered the question of whether you supported the legislation or not. Why haven't you answered that question? Don't worry about all the other angst that you and other people are so keen to bring up, just answer the damn question. Please. DamoHi 01:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The bill's been withdrawn, as I understand. Why would I or should I comment on a bill that's been withdrawn? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't follow. What impediment would that make to your answering the question of whether you support the proposed change to the law that the bill would make? DamoHi 01:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC):
- Do not be a complete jackass. There are no proposed changes to the law. The bill has been withdrawn. The bill had nine sponsors -- all women. The bill's author claimed a transcriptional error in drafting and it's being rewrittten. So what the fuck kind of hate and nonsense are you spewing now since there is nothing to consider or comment on? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 17:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is a perfectly sensible question. Do you support the principle that a women who has been raped cannot have an abortion because this would amount to tampering with the evidence? Yes/No. --DamoHi 23:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the bills author who withdrew it does not support that position. So it's a moot point. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 23:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rob I am not asking about the bill's prospects. I am asking about whether you support the principle that was in the bill. Your refusal to answer such a simple question is intriguing. I can't work it out. DamoHi 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- What is the intent of the law? Obviously what you've latched onto no one supports, not even the woman author and its nine women cosponsors. According to her hometown newspaper, she's rewritting what the intent of her proposed legislation is. But you, ignoraing the facts, have latched onto some gigantic, "Brown should resign!" movement. The questions here have been about Ms. Brown & party affiliation. IMO, you are just a sexist pig who cannot tolerate intelligent, strong women like Ms. Brown and the nine women cosponsors in positions of power, and will stoop to any means and innuendo to destroy her. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 23:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I never ever said that anyone should resign. Nor do I think that someone who proposes legislation that I disagree with should resign. I was just asking a simple question. I have no clue why you are calling me a sexist pig, none whatsoever. I was only barely aware that the bills author/principle sponsor was a women - that was not my concern. I don't know why you are being so hostile to me. I think I have been perfectly polite and reasonable in this conversation. Back on point. Can I infer from your answer that you are not against abortion in the result of pregnancy from rape? DamoHi 23:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are referring to legal or sanctioned abortion. So, can apprehension and conviction of an accused rapist be accomplished in the first trimester? If not, suppose a fetus is brougfht to term anmd DNA matches occur between child and father but the mother has since changed her mind on the allegation of rape? You are not asking, I presume, whether abortion should be legal in the case of rape, you as asking if abortion shouild be legal based upon a woman's allegation of rape, isn't that correct? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest I was just trying to start up a conversation. I wasn't sure where it would end up. Conversations with you are more about scoring points than having a free exchange of ideas aren't they? I am not inclined to doubt many people who claim they have been raped. Obviously many allegations of rape cannot be proven to a courts satisfaction, but that does not mean that a rape did not take place. A rape is a rape even if it is unproven. Is it your position that abortion should be permitted in cases of legitimate rape, but not otherwise? DamoHi 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- You are referring to legal or sanctioned abortion. So, can apprehension and conviction of an accused rapist be accomplished in the first trimester? If not, suppose a fetus is brougfht to term anmd DNA matches occur between child and father but the mother has since changed her mind on the allegation of rape? You are not asking, I presume, whether abortion should be legal in the case of rape, you as asking if abortion shouild be legal based upon a woman's allegation of rape, isn't that correct? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I never ever said that anyone should resign. Nor do I think that someone who proposes legislation that I disagree with should resign. I was just asking a simple question. I have no clue why you are calling me a sexist pig, none whatsoever. I was only barely aware that the bills author/principle sponsor was a women - that was not my concern. I don't know why you are being so hostile to me. I think I have been perfectly polite and reasonable in this conversation. Back on point. Can I infer from your answer that you are not against abortion in the result of pregnancy from rape? DamoHi 23:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- What is the intent of the law? Obviously what you've latched onto no one supports, not even the woman author and its nine women cosponsors. According to her hometown newspaper, she's rewritting what the intent of her proposed legislation is. But you, ignoraing the facts, have latched onto some gigantic, "Brown should resign!" movement. The questions here have been about Ms. Brown & party affiliation. IMO, you are just a sexist pig who cannot tolerate intelligent, strong women like Ms. Brown and the nine women cosponsors in positions of power, and will stoop to any means and innuendo to destroy her. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 23:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rob I am not asking about the bill's prospects. I am asking about whether you support the principle that was in the bill. Your refusal to answer such a simple question is intriguing. I can't work it out. DamoHi 23:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the bills author who withdrew it does not support that position. So it's a moot point. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 23:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is a perfectly sensible question. Do you support the principle that a women who has been raped cannot have an abortion because this would amount to tampering with the evidence? Yes/No. --DamoHi 23:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do not be a complete jackass. There are no proposed changes to the law. The bill has been withdrawn. The bill had nine sponsors -- all women. The bill's author claimed a transcriptional error in drafting and it's being rewrittten. So what the fuck kind of hate and nonsense are you spewing now since there is nothing to consider or comment on? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 17:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't follow. What impediment would that make to your answering the question of whether you support the proposed change to the law that the bill would make? DamoHi 01:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC):
- The bill's been withdrawn, as I understand. Why would I or should I comment on a bill that's been withdrawn? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rob, you still haven't answered the question of whether you supported the legislation or not. Why haven't you answered that question? Don't worry about all the other angst that you and other people are so keen to bring up, just answer the damn question. Please. DamoHi 01:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rob, you better pray the return on involuntary institution backed by some Conservative groups doesn't pass or you're gonna find yourself wearing one of those cool jackets with sleeves that tie in the back within a week. SirChuckBPenguin Knight, First Class 22:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No No No, a rape is not a rape if you're on the recieving end of the charge and you are innocent. Not in the legal sense of the definition of rape. Ands that is what we are discussing -- legal abortion. You seem to be more in the position of scoring points to sell a product to younger voters with buzz words and phrases, such as "in cases of rape". The facts are, abortion is legal in cases of rape. You're language attempts to change the legal definiton of rape based soley one person's testimony without granting the accused a trial. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well abortion is legal in most cases, not just those based around rape, thank god. As someone who works as a criminal defence lawyer I am perfectly aware of the point you are making about something not being a crime unless it is proven. However, as I'm sure you would agree if you thought about it, a person can be raped and yet no person is convicted of that rape. In much the same way that a person can be murdered, but no murderer is ever convicted. The fact of whether someone is raped or not is a fact that is not dependent on what a court finds. I understand that you are against abortion, for whatever reason. I was just wondering if you were against it in all cases, such as when the intercourse was non-consensual. Am I right in thinking that you wouldn't be, but only if the case had gone to trial and a conviction enabled? If so, that is an arguable position, and I don't know why it has taken you so long to say it. You could have said this 5 or 6 replies ago. DamoHi 02:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- ok so we're clearing the air. I'm speaking about, for want of a better term, "the rape loophole". All a woman/girl needs to do in some jurisdictions is show up at a clinic, claim her beloved husband/boyfriend, whom she is still carrying on a romantic relationship, "raped" her, and voila, the doctor & clinic get to bill the state or private insuror for services. Would you agree (a) this is an area for state regulation; and (b) this is an area of potential abuse? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but there are plenty of legal burdens other than 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Balance of probabilities might work (ie is the person more likely than not to have been raped) or perhaps even a lower threshold such as having to establish an evidentiary burden, beyond which the onus would shift to someone who wished to deny it. In any case, the issue of who should pay for the abortions is not really what I was concerned about. DamoHi 02:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- So what our non-Americans readers of this discussion may not realize is, when common buzz words like "cases of rape" or "abortion on demand" are bandied about in national media, there 50 different definitions and regulations from 50 different states that apply to those terms . In some states "abortion only in cases of rape" is the same as "aborton on demand", despite what's been argued in candidate debates for the past 40 years. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 03:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but there are plenty of legal burdens other than 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Balance of probabilities might work (ie is the person more likely than not to have been raped) or perhaps even a lower threshold such as having to establish an evidentiary burden, beyond which the onus would shift to someone who wished to deny it. In any case, the issue of who should pay for the abortions is not really what I was concerned about. DamoHi 02:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- ok so we're clearing the air. I'm speaking about, for want of a better term, "the rape loophole". All a woman/girl needs to do in some jurisdictions is show up at a clinic, claim her beloved husband/boyfriend, whom she is still carrying on a romantic relationship, "raped" her, and voila, the doctor & clinic get to bill the state or private insuror for services. Would you agree (a) this is an area for state regulation; and (b) this is an area of potential abuse? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Sheryl
A close friend of the families and someone I have worked hard for in every election. The "carrying water" remark not the smartest move but she is certainly not "double dipping" or violating any rules or laws in regards to her APS pay. It is a straight up witch hunt from channel 13, made obvious by a full blown Larry Barker special about a parking space at the performance art center. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is a peculiar question; cause it would be the state legislature that would have to address the question of reform, and she is the Majority Leader that would muster the votes, make committee appointments to propose reform, etc. How would there not be conflict of interest in voting for teacher payraises, as I beleive she also holds some important union post there, too (I may be mistaken). At a miniumum, it should be recognzed there are legitimate ethical concerns, which only a House Committee, that she has undo influence with, could look into. The Courts and Executive Branch don't have any say here. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 03:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Except she was not the majority leader nor a teacher. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Majority Whip and on the Rules Committee, which if NM is like the feds, oversees ethics probes of members. And of course the whip whips up any votes for action. The Rules Committee was spared any further embarassment when APS itself voted to stop paying employees eelected to the legislature. And it still seems she violated APS's employess rules handbook. None of this looks very good for a person in a party leadership position, particulalry her attitude, that she doesn't really care. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 05:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that they had to vote to change the rules should inform even the most dense that it wasn't the rule before. The handbook policies specifically exempted certain classes of employees administrators being one. NM is a citizens legislature there is very little "pay" involved and APS allowing paid time off for legislative service was an attempt to allow teachers and educators to actually be able to serve and have a role in shaping education bills and funding. Something Martinez and her ilk would certainly like to see gutted. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a citizen legislature. But I was under the impression was also a union rep of sorts. Whether she is representing other teachers to her employer (the state legislature) or not, there is a conflict of interest there in voting payraises and funding. As a legislator, yes she can vote herself a payraise. But voting on scholl funding puts her in a COA with taxpayers who pay the bills. And it just doesn't look good for the party to re-elect her to a leadership role where it seems her narrow objective is to milk the taxpayers and public purse of every dime, at every opportunity. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 14:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- So what your saying is that anytime a piece of legislation might effect someones "day job" they should recuse themselves? Tort reform? No lawyers allowed! Medical care? No doctors allowed! Certainly a minority position your thumping there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't just something that affects the industry she's employed in, it affects funding directly earmarked for her employer. APS, which is the recipient of legislative appropriations, had someone on its payroll in a leadership position to whip the votes into line, Campaign financing, donations, and lobbying are controversial enough, but a paid leave of absense--paid to her personally, not a campaign committee, looks atrocious. A doctor or lawyer serving in the legislature who continues to draw a salary from their practice serving clients that are direct recipients of government funds would be in a similiar position. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 19:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is a party line issue thumped from Martinez who wants to gut public education. Denying educators the right to serve in state legislatures because they are educators is what "looks atrocious" to me. That is a party line issue though I guess, the main point of this thread, which you seem to have conceded was that there was not policy or rules violations. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the facts: "APS employee handbook ruled such leave should be unpaid." Stapleton took $167,000 anyway. When it became public, the school superintendant changed the rule to allow her to keep the cash. Under this cloak, the school board later changed the rule again and she stopped taking cash. None of these facts answer the question (1) where was a state House ethics probe in all of this, and (2) what was her role in supressing House action on ethics reform. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 20:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is a party line issue thumped from Martinez who wants to gut public education. Denying educators the right to serve in state legislatures because they are educators is what "looks atrocious" to me. That is a party line issue though I guess, the main point of this thread, which you seem to have conceded was that there was not policy or rules violations. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- This isn't just something that affects the industry she's employed in, it affects funding directly earmarked for her employer. APS, which is the recipient of legislative appropriations, had someone on its payroll in a leadership position to whip the votes into line, Campaign financing, donations, and lobbying are controversial enough, but a paid leave of absense--paid to her personally, not a campaign committee, looks atrocious. A doctor or lawyer serving in the legislature who continues to draw a salary from their practice serving clients that are direct recipients of government funds would be in a similiar position. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 19:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- So what your saying is that anytime a piece of legislation might effect someones "day job" they should recuse themselves? Tort reform? No lawyers allowed! Medical care? No doctors allowed! Certainly a minority position your thumping there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a citizen legislature. But I was under the impression was also a union rep of sorts. Whether she is representing other teachers to her employer (the state legislature) or not, there is a conflict of interest there in voting payraises and funding. As a legislator, yes she can vote herself a payraise. But voting on scholl funding puts her in a COA with taxpayers who pay the bills. And it just doesn't look good for the party to re-elect her to a leadership role where it seems her narrow objective is to milk the taxpayers and public purse of every dime, at every opportunity. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 14:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that they had to vote to change the rules should inform even the most dense that it wasn't the rule before. The handbook policies specifically exempted certain classes of employees administrators being one. NM is a citizens legislature there is very little "pay" involved and APS allowing paid time off for legislative service was an attempt to allow teachers and educators to actually be able to serve and have a role in shaping education bills and funding. Something Martinez and her ilk would certainly like to see gutted. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Majority Whip and on the Rules Committee, which if NM is like the feds, oversees ethics probes of members. And of course the whip whips up any votes for action. The Rules Committee was spared any further embarassment when APS itself voted to stop paying employees eelected to the legislature. And it still seems she violated APS's employess rules handbook. None of this looks very good for a person in a party leadership position, particulalry her attitude, that she doesn't really care. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 05:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Except she was not the majority leader nor a teacher. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course in the end her district voted to return her by a very healthy margin, both in the primaries with a hand picked Martinez funded challenger, and in the general (though Yntema and Landry were not exactly cream of the crop, but there is a fascinating story behind Landry deciding to run, actually screwed up her petitions too didn't have signatures from the right precinct). Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Nice to meet you
I guess we're an endangered minority on this site. I'm afraid I probably won't last too long, it seems certain users can't stand the idea that others disagree with them. ProudTory (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- As I've told you more then once, you're being extremely confrontational on a site where you're the ideological minority. Of course people are having a negative reaction to you!--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- We're here! We're Queer! We're here! We're Queer! We will not hide in the shadows! etc. ProudTory (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you implying that I'm homosexual? It is groundless (infact there's evidence against that in my userpage), and isn't a very good or original insult.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm... I was rather messily trying to compare our position as minorities (see above) with that of the gay rights movement. Its a funny juxtaposition since conservatives supposedly want to exterminate gay people, so you know... ProudTory (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- So, you're being an idiot? Got it.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow. Get a sense of humour. Or are you uncomfortable with your sexuality or something?ProudTory (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nice to meet you. Tory (btw, Tory in American English used to mean "traitor", as Benedict Arnold was a Tory; now in American English "socialist" means traitor. So whether England is ruled by tories or socialists, they all have a burden to bare in American eyes). You'll get along fine if you stick to issues. Don't take the bait. Resign yourself to being a racist hatemonger, and if you complain that's unfair, it's just more evidence how ignorant and brainwashed you are. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 22:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the original meaning of Tory was a Irish rural bandit but later came to refer to monarchists in the House of Commons.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.
17:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the original meaning of Tory was a Irish rural bandit but later came to refer to monarchists in the House of Commons.
- Well, I still have a chip on my shoulder about you lot breaking away (ungrateful SOBs :-) ProudTory (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- The Dream of Cecil Rhodes was "the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire". Sounds like Rhodes Scholar-One World-Illuminati stuff. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 01:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nice to meet you. Tory (btw, Tory in American English used to mean "traitor", as Benedict Arnold was a Tory; now in American English "socialist" means traitor. So whether England is ruled by tories or socialists, they all have a burden to bare in American eyes). You'll get along fine if you stick to issues. Don't take the bait. Resign yourself to being a racist hatemonger, and if you complain that's unfair, it's just more evidence how ignorant and brainwashed you are. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 22:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- We're here! We're Queer! We're here! We're Queer! We will not hide in the shadows! etc. ProudTory (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Hey, Rob, how do you feel about gay marriage?
I'm curious if your fascination with Kara Duhe had any knock-on political effects. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Silly ToP - that Kara Duhe incident was just a big joke Rob was playing on us. You should feel silly for falling for it. Acei9 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- In a word, gay marriage is an oxymoron, but I could be wrong. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 17:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Silly!!!!
Going to a dead wiki to create a page attacking Trent is low. Even for you. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dead? I thought it was the future. Attack? it should be flattering, being compared to a ledgendary figure. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Other than you and spambots, that place has been dead since December. I'm placing a bet that Tisane did, as he was threatening, violate probation and is back in jail, to be honest. He vanished from the web completely on December 3rd. He's not even active on MisesWiki anymore. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is news; both Ratwikiwiki and Ratewikiwikiwiki are dead? What's next? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 08:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why Conservapedia, of course! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is news; both Ratwikiwiki and Ratewikiwikiwiki are dead? What's next? nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 08:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Other than you and spambots, that place has been dead since December. I'm placing a bet that Tisane did, as he was threatening, violate probation and is back in jail, to be honest. He vanished from the web completely on December 3rd. He's not even active on MisesWiki anymore. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Your thoughts requested
...Am I correct here, more or less? Polar Bear In the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 02:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes yes, Andy is the advocate for the underdog. But it's a catch-22, the argument goes the underdog's views really are mainstream. And once the underdog's views are recognized as mainstream, then the backbiting and backstabbing ensues. Some mainstream underdog's views aren't underdog or mainstream enough, like neocons & RINOs. He knows his views, like the America First isolationism he inherited from his mother, lost influence in the Republican party with election of Eisenhower. His view of what a "conservative Republican" is. is not the mainstream GOP. So he feels he's giving voice to what a "traditional conservative" is, not only in the GOP, but to independents, opponents, non-partisans, and the whole planet as well. nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- And the (non-political) part, "He wants the ideas that rationalists accept as dogmatic (in his eyes) like an old earth or evolution to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny that a young earth or creationism are subject to in the academy/on places like Wikipedia, etc. ... he sees that as championing a kind of intellectual freedom in which all ideas are equal. " is very well paraphrased, and really common in redstate America. Even Limbaugh says basically the samething (whom Andy now consigns to being a "RINO backer"). nobsSay hello to my leetle friend 02:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Ha
Ha — Unsigned, by: GhostofTK / talk / contribs
[edit] Putinophilia
You know, the only other people I've seen exhibiting such behavior were rabidly left-wing, knee-jerk USA-haters. Horseshoe theory in action?--ZooGuard (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yes, definitely. The lack of leadership from America creates a global vacuum, so Putin steps up to fill the void. nobsJesus loves you and I love you, but nobody else does. 19:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Waaay hey
Rob's back. How's it all going? Acei9 20:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Life sucks. It's like being in hell, you should know that. That's where your gonna spend eternity, isn't it? nobsJesus loves you and I love you, but nobody else does. 20:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hey what's up Rob. Long time no see. Holler.

04:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hell? I'll see you there, Rob my boy. The lord looks dimly on those with lust in their hearts. Acei9 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hey what's up Rob. Long time no see. Holler.
Just an opinion. Maybe if you had some personal responsibility to improve your life instead of blaming everyone else for your mistakes it would be less like a living hell. I doubt the lord would make every waking moment in life so painful if you were doing what the lord actually approved of.
- I have. I've converted to Islam and carrying on jihad against the godless commies and and those who bring a disreputable name upon Islam. All Praise be to Allah! nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to be as adept at driving all the commies out as you were being a sysop at Conservapedia. That kind of failure would certainly make most people feel like their lives are a living hell.
- Communism is sorta like Ebola: you're never gonna eradicate it and closer you get to treating it risks deadly infection. So yes, it is a living hell. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 01:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to be as adept at driving all the commies out as you were being a sysop at Conservapedia. That kind of failure would certainly make most people feel like their lives are a living hell.
[edit] Powerhouse
Quite right Rob. You were such a respected intellectual powerhouse at Conservapedia that your banning caused your fans to leave in droves. Acei9 23:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] I'd like your thoughts on something
Hey Rob. As one of RationalWiki's most authentic conservatives, I'd like your opinion on this article about the Tea Party. I've heard every damn liberal opinion up the wazoo, but I'd like to know how the other side of the fence feels for once. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is interesting how these spin-offs take on a life of their own. A parallel phenomenon happened to the Democratic Party in the 1980s with Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which was hijacked in 1988 by Lenora Fullani's Rainbow Tour, which later became the basis for Ross Perot's Reform Party ('92 & '96) having achieved ballot status in 50 states. By 2000 Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nadar were struggling for its control.
- The original Tea Party was founded by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and as its name implies was exactly that -- a tax protest movement. Armey, an economist, was one of the first to begin separating the economic conservatives from the social conservatives. Social conservatives tend to be married to a lot of losing issues, like anti-abortion, anti-immigrant, anti-gay rights, school prayer, etc etc. Armey rejected the House Speakership (he was next in line when Gingrich quit) and gave up being Majority Leader to form a grassroots tax protest movement called the Tea Party. GW Bush's big government Prescription Drug benefit was probably the last straW. Armey wanted to organize a reform movement of economic conservatives against the GOP establishment that campaigned on fiscal responsibility, but acted like Democrats when in power.
- Of coarse his movement attracted the rednecks, too. The link you provide is in error, cause the original Tea Party predates Obama. Some of these rednecks brought with them their social issues, like being anti-immigrant, which of course made it easy for Democrats, liberals, communists, and journalists to paint what was originally a tax protest movement as racist (some of these rednecks probably are among the 47% Mitt Romney calls deadbeats who don't pay taxes, either).
- So the link you provide shows some of the corruption of these spinoff groups (which even Sarah Palin has been associated with). But none of them have any relationship, really, with Dick Armey's Freedom Works, the original parent group of the tax protest movement. nobsOne who's been there. 04:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. I did not actually know that the Tea Party had been around that long. I knew Dick Armey was the force behind its creation, but not that it had started back during Bush. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Tea Party was always a reform movement within the GOP, something opponents of the GOP you'd think would encourage. nobsOne who's been there. 03:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. I did not actually know that the Tea Party had been around that long. I knew Dick Armey was the force behind its creation, but not that it had started back during Bush. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Property article
Do you think the article should also mention how things like licenses and permits have been protected by Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence as some of the "property" found in substantive due process rights? Granted, it would seem like most people would consider that strange, but legalese can sometimes differ drastically from normal usage and I think it aligns nicely with Madison's position. Also, what about carbon credits? They're pretty property-like, but I think they exist in a sort of limbo. — Melab (Talk) 06:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Great points. Perhaps differentiating (as American tax law does) between business property & personal property. Then getting into licenses and permits (licenses on the airwaves is a great example - a broadcaster does not own the radio frequency - it is public property - licenced to an individual or enterprise. This has large ramifications down to cell phones, remote controls, and now drones, as well. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 20:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is just my personal view and I wouldn't suggest including it in the article, but I don't think the airwaves are property of any kind. I consider them, like many other things, to sui generis and that legislation was crafted to handle it. Would you say the airwaves were public property before the rise of radio? I wouldn't.
- The way I view things is that the public realm (public property) is a kind of "default" and private property exists as an exception to it. The "exception" part is important. For instance, you can't drive drunk on public roads, but (this is where the exception comes in) you can drive drunk on a private lot.
- I think drivers' licenses and occupational licenses would be two other good examples to go with broadcasting licenses because they're so ubiquitous.
- Do we have an article on civil asset forfeiture? If we don't then maybe we should mention it. I just watched John Oliver's video on it and I didn't know how bad it was until then. In rem is probably one of the dumbest fucking legal concepts I've ever heard of. Suing a piece of property. How preposterous. Although it did initially arise to deal with the real problem of unknown owners. — Melab (Talk) 06:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Wisconsin
Almost 5 hours of repeated editing of the article on Wisconsin? How much of a life do you not have? Your life is a living hell if you can spend that much time screwing around repeatedly with a single article.
- It was a stub and since the previous GOP Vice Presidential candidate and the next President are both from Wisconsin, people may be interested why Wisconsin can provide the vision, the leadership, and the way forward in these dark and troubling times. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why you responding to some dickless shit who doesn't have the courage to post from his regular account? Nutty Roux (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- How many dickless shits are active on this wiki monitoring others activity for five hours? Call him the Ken DeMyer of Rationalwiki. And there's whole shitloads of personal obsessions and traits he has in common with Ken. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 05:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why you responding to some dickless shit who doesn't have the courage to post from his regular account? Nutty Roux (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
...or it could be listed on the most recent changes link on the front page when some obsessive is wanking on a single article :-) You have been here how long and haven't figured out what's there?
- Doubled down, eh? Anonymous trolling is weak, but you knew that or you would have used your regular account to say "Hey neat! Rob spent his own time researching and writing an RW article. Thanks Rob! I don't always agree with you, but darnit you're a better editor than I am!" Because you obviously lack the balls to rag on Rob to his face. Nutty Roux (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, why wouldn't I want to be a part of a website where users think I am a lesser human being if I don't have a penis? THAT's the place which inspires me. Rob was talking about how his life is hell, and I'm an asshole for unpleasantly pointing out that this obsession is why. The 6 archives of others at RW insulting him, the talk space on another account boldly saying he is never coming back, and a main-space article filled with worse insults with his real name and his shitty job are perfectly fine. Very inspiring again. I don't see how making a stupid nickname is to someone's face. You can keep that enlightened view to yourself, like I wish you had about telling strangers about how much you like dicks. The plus side of being anonymous like this is that Ken seems to be getting the blame.
- Nice cowardly non-response. I love how RW's so permissive that this kind of shit from anonymous troll is almost embraced. That's the kind of place that inspires nobody. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nice attempt to question people's manhood to try to get them to do what you want. That works in sporting movies and war films with plucky new kids, while this is real life chump. Rob seems to at least get some enjoyment from the attention he must get no where else in his life even at these places no one likes him. I can at least understand when life sucks you take what you can get. You seem to have at least a few more brain cells than teeth and likely can do other things that would be enjoyable than deal with fuckwits like me. If it's that terrible and constant why are you here? That's really stupid.
- Another non-response.You are correct that I've got much better things to do, so I'll leave you with a question. What's satisfying about popping up out of the blue to anonymously attack someone who's done nothing to you? Rob certainly doesn't need my defense, so to give a simple answer your concern about why I'm here, It's because I care about the site more than you do. I care less and less because nobody seems to mind people like you feeling entitled to do what you're doing, or anyone here being entitled to do whatever they want even if it's harmful and having such an incredibly hard time justifying their behavior, to be honest, but I still care. Fair enough? Nutty Roux (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Though, if you just want the response you imagine I should be saying then buy a parrot and teach it what you want to hear. I was an editor that cared many years ago but I have no more history than most others using him as a punching bag daily, and he deserves some crap for trolling his own life to the point of being a living hell (his words) while blaming the world. Although it is hard to compete with the existing insults in [Essay:RobS is Bat-shit Insane] (classy it exists with this hatred of trolls)...but I guess that essay is okay because he posted it with his account. Do what I say and not what I do is pretty standard at RW, and I am sad to see that some of the names may have changed but everything else is the same. I think the editors produce a good things, while a number make sure editors go the way I went and you are going now. Glad I can help make it as pleasant as it was made for me.
- Point of clarification: I said, "my life is a living hell..." is a lead in to the gospel. My life is a living hell without Jesus. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 03:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- What you said is recorded on your talk page for prosperity so at least try and hide that before you attempt to re-contextualize it. If you life is an example of one where you reap rewards for being blessed by jesus's love then you are either reviled, or jesus tortures his worshipers. It would be better if you represented yourself as another faith so it would make them look worse. Your life as it has been described now would be a living hell to anyone who is not in jail or on the streets.
- My friend, it is the struggle between the natural and the spiritual -- even Jesus went through that. To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Christians go thru these manic phases of wrestling with the natural, which of coarse, is a living hell.
- Take for instance an asshole who owes me $50 for sometime now; when I think about all times he promised to square the debt up, and lied to my my face, I get pissed and think maybe the Muslims got a point in cutting off thieves hands; and in this case his lying tongue, too. So that piece of shit makes my life a living hell; thank Jesus I'm capable if understanding, and even forgiving. cause left to myself, I'm a real miserable asshole. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- What you said is recorded on your talk page for prosperity so at least try and hide that before you attempt to re-contextualize it. If you life is an example of one where you reap rewards for being blessed by jesus's love then you are either reviled, or jesus tortures his worshipers. It would be better if you represented yourself as another faith so it would make them look worse. Your life as it has been described now would be a living hell to anyone who is not in jail or on the streets.
- Point of clarification: I said, "my life is a living hell..." is a lead in to the gospel. My life is a living hell without Jesus. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 03:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Though, if you just want the response you imagine I should be saying then buy a parrot and teach it what you want to hear. I was an editor that cared many years ago but I have no more history than most others using him as a punching bag daily, and he deserves some crap for trolling his own life to the point of being a living hell (his words) while blaming the world. Although it is hard to compete with the existing insults in [Essay:RobS is Bat-shit Insane] (classy it exists with this hatred of trolls)...but I guess that essay is okay because he posted it with his account. Do what I say and not what I do is pretty standard at RW, and I am sad to see that some of the names may have changed but everything else is the same. I think the editors produce a good things, while a number make sure editors go the way I went and you are going now. Glad I can help make it as pleasant as it was made for me.
- Another non-response.You are correct that I've got much better things to do, so I'll leave you with a question. What's satisfying about popping up out of the blue to anonymously attack someone who's done nothing to you? Rob certainly doesn't need my defense, so to give a simple answer your concern about why I'm here, It's because I care about the site more than you do. I care less and less because nobody seems to mind people like you feeling entitled to do what you're doing, or anyone here being entitled to do whatever they want even if it's harmful and having such an incredibly hard time justifying their behavior, to be honest, but I still care. Fair enough? Nutty Roux (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nice attempt to question people's manhood to try to get them to do what you want. That works in sporting movies and war films with plucky new kids, while this is real life chump. Rob seems to at least get some enjoyment from the attention he must get no where else in his life even at these places no one likes him. I can at least understand when life sucks you take what you can get. You seem to have at least a few more brain cells than teeth and likely can do other things that would be enjoyable than deal with fuckwits like me. If it's that terrible and constant why are you here? That's really stupid.
- Nice cowardly non-response. I love how RW's so permissive that this kind of shit from anonymous troll is almost embraced. That's the kind of place that inspires nobody. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, why wouldn't I want to be a part of a website where users think I am a lesser human being if I don't have a penis? THAT's the place which inspires me. Rob was talking about how his life is hell, and I'm an asshole for unpleasantly pointing out that this obsession is why. The 6 archives of others at RW insulting him, the talk space on another account boldly saying he is never coming back, and a main-space article filled with worse insults with his real name and his shitty job are perfectly fine. Very inspiring again. I don't see how making a stupid nickname is to someone's face. You can keep that enlightened view to yourself, like I wish you had about telling strangers about how much you like dicks. The plus side of being anonymous like this is that Ken seems to be getting the blame.
[edit] Sorry if I misunderstood your intentions
Yeah, that definitely makes it more clear. In Uni, I had a great deal of friends, MOST, I'll admit, were Sunni, and a few were Shia. But I really don't think that the average Sunni is devious or out to harm the Shia. That's why the way you wrote it made it kind of seem like you were saying that.
I realize that the death of Ali Ra is still a very sore and uncomfortable topic among modern-day Muslims, but I do think the Shia/Sunni conflict can be overcome and can be progressed in a way that is peaceful for both sides. The problem is that when one side demonizes the other, any hope of peace becomes impossible.Parogar (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. Reality is, if ISIS is to be contained or defeated, it is the Sunni living under their control and those threatened to be, who must willingly stand up and fight this evil. It's not American bombs that should do it, but the oppressed Sunni tribes wanting to live peaceably who need and deserve aide. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Would you like to work together?
I'm not nearly as knowledgeable on this topic as you are, but if one of the chief complaints people are having is that the article comes off as a bit boring, I really think I can help you out. I need to finish some work I promised I'd upload for my readers tonight, but afterwards, I have quite a few Muslim readers, and some of them are writers, too, if we need more help I mean. We can make this article more appetizing, I promise you that much at least.
I think the problem is that it needs to be ... not "dumbed down", but more accessible to people who have no idea what it's about and might feel that they have no reason to care.
They say that the first line of a book is the most important. It's the "inciting" incident. You have one chance to capture your reader with your opening hook, so I'd suggest taking the most powerful and important statement you can think of on this section and opening with it. Make it a powerful blow that is guaranteed to hook in the reader. Parogar (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Basically, we need to make them care. People need to read it and say, "Damn, this shit is serious." Parogar (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Wonderful idea. I think the basic outlines of Zarqawi's life are there. It could be expanded in so many ways that could generate new pages and article topics. Yes, I'd love the help. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 04:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm just making suggested changes. Feel free to delete / rollback anything I do. I don't think his early history is so important. Maybe for a researcher, but I think that, for RationalWiki, we need to play up his evil deeds and his authoritarian nature, while trying to condense as much of the "encyclopedia" type content as possible. I think you should make the next section (after the intro) about how much of an authoritarian figure he was Parogar (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree about his childhood. One sentence needs to simply say he was from the streets and not a religious background. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm just making suggested changes. Feel free to delete / rollback anything I do. I don't think his early history is so important. Maybe for a researcher, but I think that, for RationalWiki, we need to play up his evil deeds and his authoritarian nature, while trying to condense as much of the "encyclopedia" type content as possible. I think you should make the next section (after the intro) about how much of an authoritarian figure he was Parogar (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Hey nobby
You're obviously well-versed in recent Islamic and Middle-Eastern history. Would you recommend any books or websites for somebody seeking to learn more about said items? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 04:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have quite a few, but this one I'm quite impressed with (despite their board of directors); for daily news on the global war, Longwar Journal covers it all; to get specific, inside intell on ISIS, Syria, and Iraq, this young guy who's fluent in English and the local languages is making a big impression writings for Janes, but you can get his stuff free from his blog.
- I got more if there's something more specific those don't cover. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 05:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- All of these look great. Thanks! Off to do malicious things with this additional, useful information. ^_^ FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 05:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Keep it up, buddy
I've been rather enjoying watching you go after various aspects of Islamic fundamentalism. Keep up the good work, man! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. There's more and more interest and material every day, and I hope it becomes useful to a wider readership in coming months and the next few years. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 07:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is it going to be expanded to others? It would be nice to have an indepth series into fundamentalism. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what you mean; it could be tailored that way, but my knowledge generally is more historical/political/economic/military with a tinge of sociological and not so much in depth analysis of ideologies and theory. How would you suggest we proceed? nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just fundamentalism in every faith. There are conflicts around the world as people fight to show their god is the most loving. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- My Islamic friend tells me, quote: "God is love [1 Jn 4:8 as Christians believe] is bullshit". That would be Original Research. I need a good cite for the truth of that statement. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Um, what? That doesn't follow from the origional question. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- While being proselytized, a Muslim since birth told me "God is love" is Christian and Judaic "bullshit". Allah, and I've heard from the horses mouth, is not a loving God. He is vengeful and wrathful. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Allah hates his unbelieving enemies, and he expects his people to hate his enemies with the same divine hatred he has, and intention to destroy them. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- (EC) So you want me to do the work of fact checking a random statement from a random "friend?" Oh...oh hell no, that's hilarious. I just asked your scope. It just seemed too mean to throw in mocking comments like others at RW anymore given what life has already done. It doesn't mean you can assume I'm your friend or errand boy. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- No no no, sorry, I was rushed for time last nite and wanted to get that link to you quick and seriously was interested in what your impression of it was. That's all. No misunderstanding, I hope. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 14:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- While being proselytized, a Muslim since birth told me "God is love" is Christian and Judaic "bullshit". Allah, and I've heard from the horses mouth, is not a loving God. He is vengeful and wrathful. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Um, what? That doesn't follow from the origional question. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- My Islamic friend tells me, quote: "God is love [1 Jn 4:8 as Christians believe] is bullshit". That would be Original Research. I need a good cite for the truth of that statement. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Just fundamentalism in every faith. There are conflicts around the world as people fight to show their god is the most loving. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly what you mean; it could be tailored that way, but my knowledge generally is more historical/political/economic/military with a tinge of sociological and not so much in depth analysis of ideologies and theory. How would you suggest we proceed? nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 22:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Is it going to be expanded to others? It would be nice to have an indepth series into fundamentalism. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] An academic source relevant to your essaying predilections
Islam and Human Rights: A Growing Rapprochement? Ikanreed (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, and wow. Reading the Abstract, it asks if Islam is compatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Interesting, cause it was Islamic scholars in my research that called to my attention gay marriage violates the UNDHR Article 16 (1), "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." The Islamic scholars I've read so far claim this clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman. nobsISIS is a thorn in the world's ass and will be removed. 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)