Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Social Issues > Bullying

Bullying Until recently, Bullying has been identified as a major concern in our Society.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:03 PM   #31
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1332860125' post='391961

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1332851982' post='391952']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332692289' post='391662']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332691846' post='391659']

Few who "stand for the truth" on the internet would be so "bold" face-to-face. The evolution of bullying since 1990 has resulted in internet bullies, gormless, ever-wanking cowards who often take cover behind "We The People."











I am more than willing to call you that to your face if you want.





I see what Xander means about anonymous people bullying on the internet


Wow, saying that I am willing to call you Baghdad Gary to your face is now considered bullying?



There is no threat stated or even implied there. I have no desire to physically assualt you, or even publically humiliate you (although you do just fine on your own with humiliating yourself in public).



I am just making the statement that anything I say on this forum I am more than willing to say in the real world....and face to face with anyone that disagrees with me.



I am not ashamed of what I believe and what I stand for....and I truly do believe what I say.



If you see that as "bullying" then you have some issues.




I agree 110%. I am the same here and would say the same in person in the "real world". And I do.

[/quote]





If you believe what you say does that mean it's no longer bullying?

[/quote]



Bullying is an attempt to intimidate/humiliate



When I say something on here it is not an attempt to intimidate, it is an attempt to share my opinion (and more importantly) the reason behind my opinion.



My reasons are based on logic not dogma, the Constitution not opinion and reason not emotion.



It's why you always end up trying to twist my words becuase you have no logic, the Constitution does not support you (and your lack of knowledge of it and our legal system is pretty well known) and you resort to emotion over reason.



This is not bullying, I'm not attempting to intimidate you or humiliate you.



I'm just out debating you.

[/quote]





When you say your opinions are based on the Constitution does that include your opinion that I am like Baghdad Bob? I don't recall seeing his name in there



As I have patiently explained to you in great detail, when anyone says they are basing an opinion on the Constitution what they really mean is their INTERPRETATION of the Constitution.



As we are seeing in the current hearings on the health insurance mandate, very few things in the Constitution are unambiguous
garysher is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:07 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332891208' post='392140

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332860125' post='391961']

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1332851982' post='391952']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332692289' post='391662']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332691846' post='391659']

Few who "stand for the truth" on the internet would be so "bold" face-to-face. The evolution of bullying since 1990 has resulted in internet bullies, gormless, ever-wanking cowards who often take cover behind "We The People."











I am more than willing to call you that to your face if you want.





I see what Xander means about anonymous people bullying on the internet


Wow, saying that I am willing to call you Baghdad Gary to your face is now considered bullying?



There is no threat stated or even implied there. I have no desire to physically assualt you, or even publically humiliate you (although you do just fine on your own with humiliating yourself in public).



I am just making the statement that anything I say on this forum I am more than willing to say in the real world....and face to face with anyone that disagrees with me.



I am not ashamed of what I believe and what I stand for....and I truly do believe what I say.



If you see that as "bullying" then you have some issues.




I agree 110%. I am the same here and would say the same in person in the "real world". And I do.

[/quote]





If you believe what you say does that mean it's no longer bullying?

[/quote]



Bullying is an attempt to intimidate/humiliate



When I say something on here it is not an attempt to intimidate, it is an attempt to share my opinion (and more importantly) the reason behind my opinion.



My reasons are based on logic not dogma, the Constitution not opinion and reason not emotion.



It's why you always end up trying to twist my words becuase you have no logic, the Constitution does not support you (and your lack of knowledge of it and our legal system is pretty well known) and you resort to emotion over reason.



This is not bullying, I'm not attempting to intimidate you or humiliate you.



I'm just out debating you.

[/quote]





When you say your opinions are based on the Constitution does that include your opinion that I am like Baghdad Bob? I don't recall seeing his name in there

[/quote]



I don't remember seeing the name shriek on the member list or Constitution, either.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:32 PM   #33
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1332893014' post='392149

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332891208' post='392140']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332860125' post='391961']

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1332851982' post='391952']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332692289' post='391662']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332691846' post='391659']

Few who "stand for the truth" on the internet would be so "bold" face-to-face. The evolution of bullying since 1990 has resulted in internet bullies, gormless, ever-wanking cowards who often take cover behind "We The People."











I am more than willing to call you that to your face if you want.





I see what Xander means about anonymous people bullying on the internet


Wow, saying that I am willing to call you Baghdad Gary to your face is now considered bullying?



There is no threat stated or even implied there. I have no desire to physically assualt you, or even publically humiliate you (although you do just fine on your own with humiliating yourself in public).



I am just making the statement that anything I say on this forum I am more than willing to say in the real world....and face to face with anyone that disagrees with me.



I am not ashamed of what I believe and what I stand for....and I truly do believe what I say.



If you see that as "bullying" then you have some issues.




I agree 110%. I am the same here and would say the same in person in the "real world". And I do.

[/quote]





If you believe what you say does that mean it's no longer bullying?

[/quote]



Bullying is an attempt to intimidate/humiliate



When I say something on here it is not an attempt to intimidate, it is an attempt to share my opinion (and more importantly) the reason behind my opinion.



My reasons are based on logic not dogma, the Constitution not opinion and reason not emotion.



It's why you always end up trying to twist my words becuase you have no logic, the Constitution does not support you (and your lack of knowledge of it and our legal system is pretty well known) and you resort to emotion over reason.



This is not bullying, I'm not attempting to intimidate you or humiliate you.



I'm just out debating you.

[/quote]





When you say your opinions are based on the Constitution does that include your opinion that I am like Baghdad Bob? I don't recall seeing his name in there

[/quote]



I don't remember seeing the name shriek on the member list or Constitution, either.

[/quote]



"I don't like replies to partial quotes. It's called "cherry-picking," and often the reply ignores the context. "




Why are you mothering Wolfeboy now?



Can't you back off and stop harassing me?
garysher is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:43 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1332893261' post='392154

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332893014' post='392149']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332891208' post='392140']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332860125' post='391961']

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1332851982' post='391952']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332692289' post='391662']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332691846' post='391659']

Few who "stand for the truth" on the internet would be so "bold" face-to-face. The evolution of bullying since 1990 has resulted in internet bullies, gormless, ever-wanking cowards who often take cover behind "We The People."











I am more than willing to call you that to your face if you want.





I see what Xander means about anonymous people bullying on the internet


Wow, saying that I am willing to call you Baghdad Gary to your face is now considered bullying?



There is no threat stated or even implied there. I have no desire to physically assualt you, or even publically humiliate you (although you do just fine on your own with humiliating yourself in public).



I am just making the statement that anything I say on this forum I am more than willing to say in the real world....and face to face with anyone that disagrees with me.



I am not ashamed of what I believe and what I stand for....and I truly do believe what I say.



If you see that as "bullying" then you have some issues.




I agree 110%. I am the same here and would say the same in person in the "real world". And I do.

[/quote]





If you believe what you say does that mean it's no longer bullying?

[/quote]



Bullying is an attempt to intimidate/humiliate



When I say something on here it is not an attempt to intimidate, it is an attempt to share my opinion (and more importantly) the reason behind my opinion.



My reasons are based on logic not dogma, the Constitution not opinion and reason not emotion.



It's why you always end up trying to twist my words becuase you have no logic, the Constitution does not support you (and your lack of knowledge of it and our legal system is pretty well known) and you resort to emotion over reason.



This is not bullying, I'm not attempting to intimidate you or humiliate you.



I'm just out debating you.

[/quote]





When you say your opinions are based on the Constitution does that include your opinion that I am like Baghdad Bob? I don't recall seeing his name in there

[/quote]



I don't remember seeing the name shriek on the member list or Constitution, either.

[/quote]



"I don't like replies to partial quotes. It's called "cherry-picking," and often the reply ignores the context. "





Why are you mothering Wolfeboy now?



Can't you back off and stop harassing me?

[/quote]





I don't harass you.
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:43 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332891208' post='392140

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332860125' post='391961']

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1332851982' post='391952']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332692289' post='391662']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332691846' post='391659']



Few who "stand for the truth" on the internet would be so "bold" face-to-face. The evolution of bullying since 1990 has resulted in internet bullies, gormless, ever-wanking cowards who often take cover behind "We The People."











I am more than willing to call you that to your face if you want.





I see what Xander means about anonymous people bullying on the internet


Wow, saying that I am willing to call you Baghdad Gary to your face is now considered bullying?



There is no threat stated or even implied there. I have no desire to physically assualt you, or even publically humiliate you (although you do just fine on your own with humiliating yourself in public).



I am just making the statement that anything I say on this forum I am more than willing to say in the real world....and face to face with anyone that disagrees with me.



I am not ashamed of what I believe and what I stand for....and I truly do believe what I say.



If you see that as "bullying" then you have some issues.




I agree 110%. I am the same here and would say the same in person in the "real world". And I do.

[/quote]





If you believe what you say does that mean it's no longer bullying?

[/quote]



Bullying is an attempt to intimidate/humiliate



When I say something on here it is not an attempt to intimidate, it is an attempt to share my opinion (and more importantly) the reason behind my opinion.



My reasons are based on logic not dogma, the Constitution not opinion and reason not emotion.



It's why you always end up trying to twist my words becuase you have no logic, the Constitution does not support you (and your lack of knowledge of it and our legal system is pretty well known) and you resort to emotion over reason.



This is not bullying, I'm not attempting to intimidate you or humiliate you.



I'm just out debating you.

[/quote]





When you say your opinions are based on the Constitution does that include your opinion that I am like Baghdad Bob? I don't recall seeing his name in there



As I have patiently explained to you in great detail, when anyone says they are basing an opinion on the Constitution what they really mean is their INTERPRETATION of the Constitution.



As we are seeing in the current hearings on the health insurance mandate, very few things in the Constitution are unambiguous

[/quote]



I never said the Constitution was unambiguous...it's the reason we have courts in the first place. It is the job of the judges to make decisions when ambiguites arise.



What is telling is when judge after judge....court after court....agree on something.



When the VAST majority of judges and courts agree that denying same sex couples the legal protections of marriage violates the Constitution....then it's a pretty safe bet that there is a violation of the Constitution.



When all you have to rely on is ONE decision made in ONE court...and I can point to at least a half dozen courts....with a sore of judges all agreeing...then it's pretty obvious that you have lost the legal argument.



But, then again, that's why you keep crying about "We the People" and "putting it to a vote"....You KNOW you've lost the legal argument so you want to keep it out of the courts.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:44 PM   #36
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1332893014' post='392149

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332891208' post='392140']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332860125' post='391961']

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1332851982' post='391952']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332692289' post='391662']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332691846' post='391659']

Few who "stand for the truth" on the internet would be so "bold" face-to-face. The evolution of bullying since 1990 has resulted in internet bullies, gormless, ever-wanking cowards who often take cover behind "We The People."











I am more than willing to call you that to your face if you want.





I see what Xander means about anonymous people bullying on the internet


Wow, saying that I am willing to call you Baghdad Gary to your face is now considered bullying?



There is no threat stated or even implied there. I have no desire to physically assualt you, or even publically humiliate you (although you do just fine on your own with humiliating yourself in public).



I am just making the statement that anything I say on this forum I am more than willing to say in the real world....and face to face with anyone that disagrees with me.



I am not ashamed of what I believe and what I stand for....and I truly do believe what I say.



If you see that as "bullying" then you have some issues.




I agree 110%. I am the same here and would say the same in person in the "real world". And I do.

[/quote]





If you believe what you say does that mean it's no longer bullying?

[/quote]



Bullying is an attempt to intimidate/humiliate



When I say something on here it is not an attempt to intimidate, it is an attempt to share my opinion (and more importantly) the reason behind my opinion.



My reasons are based on logic not dogma, the Constitution not opinion and reason not emotion.



It's why you always end up trying to twist my words becuase you have no logic, the Constitution does not support you (and your lack of knowledge of it and our legal system is pretty well known) and you resort to emotion over reason.



This is not bullying, I'm not attempting to intimidate you or humiliate you.



I'm just out debating you.

[/quote]





When you say your opinions are based on the Constitution does that include your opinion that I am like Baghdad Bob? I don't recall seeing his name in there



As I have patiently explained to you in great detail, when anyone says they are basing an opinion on the Constitution what they really mean is their INTERPRETATION of the Constitution.



As we are seeing in the current hearings on the health insurance mandate, very few things in the Constitution are unambiguous

[/quote]



I never said the Constitution was unambiguous...it's the reason we have courts in the first place. It is the job of the judges to make decisions when ambiguites arise.



What is telling is when judge after judge....court after court....agree on something.



When the VAST majority of judges and courts agree that denying same sex couples the legal protections of marriage violates the Constitution....then it's a pretty safe bet that there is a violation of the Constitution.



When all you have to rely on is ONE decision made in ONE court...and I can point to at least a half dozen courts....with a sore of judges all agreeing...then it's pretty obvious that you have lost the legal argument.



But, then again, that's why you keep crying about "We the People" and "putting it to a vote"....You KNOW you've lost the legal argument so you want to keep it out of the courts.

[/quote]







Define "the VAST majority of judges and courts"
garysher is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:47 PM   #37
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
But, then again, that's why you keep crying about "We the People" and "putting it to a vote"....You KNOW you've lost the legal argument so you want to keep it out of the courts.




Keeping it in the courts also amounts to putting it to a vote - a vote among men in black robes.



That is a step away from government of the people, by the people for the people and would horrify the Founders
garysher is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:49 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332891208' post='392140

When I say something on here it is not an attempt to intimidate, it is an attempt to share my opinion (and more importantly) the reason behind my opinion.



My reasons are based on logic not dogma, the Constitution not opinion and reason not emotion.



It's why you always end up trying to twist my words becuase you have no logic, the Constitution does not support you (and your lack of knowledge of it and our legal system is pretty well known) and you resort to emotion over reason.



This is not bullying, I'm not attempting to intimidate you or humiliate you.



I'm just out debating you.




When you say your opinions are based on the Constitution does that include your opinion that I am like Baghdad Bob? I don't recall seeing his name in there




No, that opinion is based on logic and reason....the Constitution has nothing to do with it



Well, other than the fact that it is obvious that you don't understand the Constitution but keep trying to make arguments based on it



It's that inability to face reality (that you don't understand the Constitution) and you continual efforts to ignore reality (you keep trying to argue about the Constitution) that has earned you the nickname Baghdad Gary.



Just like the orignal Baghdad Bob, who continued to talk about how Saddam was winning the war while American tanks ran through the streets of Baghdad behind him, you continue to fight against the truth while the truth is making itself plain to everyone else.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:53 PM   #39
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary' timestamp='1332893014' post='392149

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332891208' post='392140']

When I say something on here it is not an attempt to intimidate, it is an attempt to share my opinion (and more importantly) the reason behind my opinion.



My reasons are based on logic not dogma, the Constitution not opinion and reason not emotion.



It's why you always end up trying to twist my words becuase you have no logic, the Constitution does not support you (and your lack of knowledge of it and our legal system is pretty well known) and you resort to emotion over reason.



This is not bullying, I'm not attempting to intimidate you or humiliate you.



I'm just out debating you.




When you say your opinions are based on the Constitution does that include your opinion that I am like Baghdad Bob? I don't recall seeing his name in there




No, that opinion is based on logic and reason....the Constitution has nothing to do with it



Well, other than the fact that it is obvious that you don't understand the Constitution but keep trying to make arguments based on it



It's that inability to face reality (that you don't understand the Constitution) and you continual efforts to ignore reality (you keep trying to argue about the Constitution) that has earned you the nickname Baghdad Gary.



Just like the orignal Baghdad Bob, who continued to talk about how Saddam was winning the war while American tanks ran through the streets of Baghdad behind him, you continue to fight against the truth while the truth is making itself plain to everyone else.

[/quote]



If the truth is so plain why does it create so many disagreements?



It would be more accurate to say that YOUR truth is plain to YOU
garysher is offline  
Old March 27th, 2012, 04:57 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 15,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332895426' post='392190

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332893014' post='392149']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332891208' post='392140']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332860125' post='391961']

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1332851982' post='391952']

[quote name='Nwolfe35' timestamp='1332692289' post='391662']

[quote name='gary' timestamp='1332691846' post='391659']





Few who "stand for the truth" on the internet would be so "bold" face-to-face. The evolution of bullying since 1990 has resulted in internet bullies, gormless, ever-wanking cowards who often take cover behind "We The People."













I am more than willing to call you that to your face if you want.







I see what Xander means about anonymous people bullying on the internet


Wow, saying that I am willing to call you Baghdad Gary to your face is now considered bullying?



There is no threat stated or even implied there. I have no desire to physically assualt you, or even publically humiliate you (although you do just fine on your own with humiliating yourself in public).



I am just making the statement that anything I say on this forum I am more than willing to say in the real world....and face to face with anyone that disagrees with me.



I am not ashamed of what I believe and what I stand for....and I truly do believe what I say.



If you see that as "bullying" then you have some issues.




I agree 110%. I am the same here and would say the same in person in the "real world". And I do.

[/quote]





If you believe what you say does that mean it's no longer bullying?

[/quote]



Bullying is an attempt to intimidate/humiliate



When I say something on here it is not an attempt to intimidate, it is an attempt to share my opinion (and more importantly) the reason behind my opinion.



My reasons are based on logic not dogma, the Constitution not opinion and reason not emotion.



It's why you always end up trying to twist my words becuase you have no logic, the Constitution does not support you (and your lack of knowledge of it and our legal system is pretty well known) and you resort to emotion over reason.



This is not bullying, I'm not attempting to intimidate you or humiliate you.



I'm just out debating you.

[/quote]





When you say your opinions are based on the Constitution does that include your opinion that I am like Baghdad Bob? I don't recall seeing his name in there



As I have patiently explained to you in great detail, when anyone says they are basing an opinion on the Constitution what they really mean is their INTERPRETATION of the Constitution.



As we are seeing in the current hearings on the health insurance mandate, very few things in the Constitution are unambiguous

[/quote]



I never said the Constitution was unambiguous...it's the reason we have courts in the first place. It is the job of the judges to make decisions when ambiguites arise.



What is telling is when judge after judge....court after court....agree on something.



When the VAST majority of judges and courts agree that denying same sex couples the legal protections of marriage violates the Constitution....then it's a pretty safe bet that there is a violation of the Constitution.



When all you have to rely on is ONE decision made in ONE court...and I can point to at least a half dozen courts....with a sore of judges all agreeing...then it's pretty obvious that you have lost the legal argument.



But, then again, that's why you keep crying about "We the People" and "putting it to a vote"....You KNOW you've lost the legal argument so you want to keep it out of the courts.

[/quote]







Define "the VAST majority of judges and courts"

[/quote]



You keep referring to ONE Court in NY



I refer to courts in Hawaii, Mass, Connecticut, Iowa, California, Alaska, Baltimore and Federal Courts in California and a panel of the 9th Circuit Court. Furthermore other courts have ruled that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act is also unconstitutional.



So I define VAST majority as about 12 to 1
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Social Issues > Bullying

Tags
1990, bullying, evolution



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jonah Mowry - Bullying RidinHighSpeeds Bullying 49 December 6th, 2011 07:05 PM
Who's Bullying Who? Ray Kaye Gay and Lesbian Rights 78 September 6th, 2011 08:44 AM
Aug 2 1990 intangible child Warfare 3 August 3rd, 2009 09:33 PM
George Bush Sr Called for a "New World Order" on September 11, 1990 CB_Brooklyn Political Talk 4 June 1st, 2008 07:01 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.