Stimulus dollars at work

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3298921
Haha good one!
No, he's just a jackass. Pretty much everything he posts is to stir the pot and it's all vain... almost like we're all puppets in his sick little online game. Argumentative and ignorant people are jackasses in my opinion. And I'm calling him out. He's just a kid so I shouldn't get riled up about it, but sometimes the stupidity in this nation is confounding. TheClemsonKid is a good example.
Stirring the pot is OK. As long as posters are willing to come back and defend their lines and provide a little background or links when challenged I like the debate. Just cause someone disagrees doesn't make them a jackass unless they are just being disagreeable.

 

[smartorl]

Healthy debates are awesome! Even though you may not agree, it gives you some food for thought and a glimpse into the views of the other side.
I'll even admit to flipping on an issue I was pretty convicted about because of the very convincing backup provided that opened my eyes.
Where debates get unhealthy is when someone's arguement is so weak that they have to resort to name calling.
If you can't take the heat and be civil, get out of the sandbox!

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3298942
My argument has never been about the frivolous spending of presidents. I was simply saying that TheClemsonKid is a jackass. It's my opinion, and based upon how vehemently you defend yours, I should be entitled to mine.
The problem is, you have nothing to base it on, except that you apparently disagree with any viewpoint he has. I'm an agnostic and have no problems with abortion. You're a bible thumper that believes differently. But I wouldn't label you a jackass just because you feel differently on the subject.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Feel free to call me all the names you want pal. Jackass works fine for me.
I just won't sit by and read some of this stuff without giving my opinion. Especially when most of the time, people on here only tell half the story to make their own point of view more valid.
Look, maybe you think funding academic studies for various projects is a bad idea. That's your opinion and you are more than entitled to it.
Fact of the matter is, I see someone say "Obama is spending blah blah blah dollars on the effects of cocaine on monkeys". When they don't say WHY, they are simply trying to make Obama look like the bad guy. Period.
If you don't like the fact that I point that out, then go complain to someone else, cause this kid doesn't care...
If I am wrong about something, I'll happily admit it. Or even if I think I am right about something, and you have cold, hard facts to tell me I'm wrong, at least i'll listen. But what bothers me, is that most of you have the "my way or the highway" mentality, and wouldn't want to bother debating about anything that could possibly make you look wrong in even the slightest way...
Believe it or not, academic debate and shared ideologies are what the United States you love so dearly are built on. So instead of name calling and bullying, why not have an actual intellectual debate about the topic?
Plus to be completely honest, I think most of what's on that list isn't needed at a time like this. Whether or not it will help the people of this country down the road.
I wasn't defending the spending, I was simply pointing out that the OP only told half the story. And that's nothing against him in particular, I'm sure he just saw the headline and article on some conservative website and decided to share...
Unfortunately that happens all the time...

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3298975
The problem is, you have nothing to base it on, except that you apparently disagree with any viewpoint he has. I'm an agnostic and have no problems with abortion. You're a bible thumper that believes differently. But I wouldn't label you a jackass just because you feel differently on the subject.
I have nothing to base it on?
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/vb/s...earchid=187467
There's a level of common sense that needs to come in to play at some point. And yes, you can tell when someone has a valid point (which Clemson does sometimes, I'll give him that) but in my opinion, Clemson seems to be more interested in ruffling feathers than actually getting somewhere in a debate.
For example, this whole monkey-cocaine thing. Who gives a Sh%t what the effects have on monkeys? I can think of no justifiable reason why cocaine research should be performed on monkeys unless we're considering legalizing it, in which case this country is more fried than the monkeys they're testing.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3298975
The problem is, you have nothing to base it on, except that you apparently disagree with any viewpoint he has. I'm an agnostic and have no problems with abortion. You're a bible thumper that believes differently. But I wouldn't label you a jackass just because you feel differently on the subject.
P.S. I love that you called me a bible thumper. Talk about a stereotype. Thanks for proving to me that you are just as much a hypocrite as you accuse me of being.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3298996
I have nothing to base it on?
https://forums.saltwaterfish.com/vb/s...earchid=187467
There's a level of common sense that needs to come in to play at some point. And yes, you can tell when someone has a valid point (which Clemson does sometimes, I'll give him that) but in my opinion, Clemson seems to be more interested in ruffling feathers than actually getting somewhere in a debate.
For example, this whole monkey-cocaine thing. Who gives a Sh%t what the effects have on monkeys? I can think of no justifiable reason why cocaine research should be performed on monkeys unless we're considering legalizing it, in which case this country is more fried than the monkeys they're testing.
Well I suppose we could just do the research on humans instead?
And in case you missed it over the past 30 years or so, the whole cocaine thing is a little bit of a problem here in the States...

 

[theclemsonkid]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3298997
P.S. I love that you called me a bible thumper. Talk about a stereotype. Thanks for proving to me that you are just as much a hypocrite as you accuse me of being.
I don't think he actually meant you in particular... just speaking in general. I.e. You like A, and he is completely opposed to A, he wouldn't call you a jackass just because you don't agree...

 

[reefraff]

You're all Jackasses

Reef(stirring the pot)Raff

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3298992
I just won't sit by and read some of this stuff without giving my opinion. Especially when most of the time, people on here only tell half the story to make their own point of view more valid.
Fact of the matter is, I see someone say "Obama is spending blah blah blah dollars on the effects of cocaine on monkeys". When they don't say WHY, they are simply trying to make Obama look like the bad guy. Period.
Obama is the head of this country, which means that when the government spends money on stuff, it's ultimately Obama's fault.
I take a similar opinion to that of a mother and child. If the child does something bad, the mother has to take responsibility because the child is under the care of the mother. The same is true in business. If someone screws up, the manager has to take care of it. For Example, Apple's recent issues with the antennagate on the new iPhone 4. They didn't put the person responsible on the stage to explain himself, they put Steve Jobs on the stage, the CEO. He took care of it. This is the way our country runs.
Because of the nature of management, naturally I expect our president to come in and fix things if something is going wrong where the government is involved. This is why I think you're a jackass... talking about things you don't understand because you're posting about how we can't blame Obama, even though he's the one at the wheel.
Another instance is shown in another thread where you said that you don't want to listen to discussions about Obama when those discussing use his full name. That's just childish. Don't you understand that it makes you look like an idiot when? Barack Hussein Obama IS ACTUALLY his name! And you don't want to hear it. How ignorant!
Obama's actions (or lack thereof) is just the tip of the iceberg. No matter what the outcome was, I think it was a major screw-up to triple the national debt. It's money that taxpayers will have to pay back. Instead it's going to bail out the big wigs at major companies who will make millions regardless. Instead of spending money on big corporations that *I* need to pay back, give me the money. The best way to "stimulate" an economy is by boosting sales. If the average american had more money, they'd spend it on stuff. Stuff that other people are selling. Business gets better. The Economy gets more healthy. But instead our government took OUR money and gave it to the rich. That's another reason why I am not an Obama fan.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3298992
Believe it or not, academic debate and shared ideologies are what the United States you love so dearly are built on. So instead of name calling and bullying, why not have an actual intellectual debate about the topic?.
I would HONESTLY love to have an intelligent debate with you. But I have doubts based upon your history on this site. In my opinion, you are notorious for popping online, starting a super controversial thread, and disappearing. To be truthful, that's why I don't think very highly of you, because you just pull this crap out of nowhere and don't stick around to see it unfold. And when you ARE around, it comes across like a lot of gum flapping from a kid who just likes the sound of his own voice. I've had enough.
And I'm not a republican.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3298998
And in case you missed it over the past 30 years or so, the whole cocaine thing is a little bit of a problem here in the States...
I know it's a problem here in the States, but I still don't understand why that justifies the expense of research on monkeys. Why defend it at all? I just don't understand you, man.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3298999
I don't think he actually meant you in particular... just speaking in general. I.e. You like A, and he is completely opposed to A, he wouldn't call you a jackass just because you don't agree...
Bionic can call me a jackass... I think he's called me worse before. Bionic and I have a big history of liking/hating each other. But at the end of the day I still respect him, and I hope he still respects me.
Clemson, I'm calling you out. I'm not sorry that it offends you because you need to know the truth about how you're appearing to other people... and to me you're appearing like an ignorant person, who just wants to argue.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3299011
Bionic can call me a jackass... I think he's called me worse before. Bionic and I have a big history of liking/hating each other. But at the end of the day I still respect him, and I hope he still respects me.
Clemson, I'm calling you out. I'm not sorry that it offends you because you need to know the truth about how you're appearing to other people... and to me you're appearing like an ignorant person, who just wants to argue.
You say argue, I say debate. It only comes across as "argue" because no one wants to talk about it.
So let's talk about it, shall we?
The OP stated:
$144,451 spent to study the effects of cocaine on monkeys.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/06/...-the-taxpayer/
The one and only thing I didn't like, is how he left it one sided without explaining why they were spending the money. Do you think, the way it was written by the OP, that people would get the wrong idea by simply reading that line?
To me, it comes across as "Of course, more of Obama stimulus money going to absolutely ridiculous things, like the effect of cocaine on monkeys?!?"
And if you didn't read any further into it, that is exactly what most people would think.
I actually had to look it up, and find out that it was actually for a real, albeit wasteful in the current economy, study to help your fellow man.
That's all I ever tried to say. I think it is a 100% completely valid point, as would most people...
So again, you want to call it "arguing", I call it dismantling a point with factual information.