The Official Woody Woodpecker Thread
-
@LaoC said:
So classy[tm].
DYM clbuttyâ„¢?
Of course, I butture you. Looks much better with that enbreasty, too.
-
He's clearly a hell of a lot brighter than Trump
Am I the only one to consistently read "Trump" as "turnip"?
-
it's just a bit too convenient that wikipedia is largely controlled by SJWs, who put their preferred politically-motivated persuasive redefinitions there, then point people to the site as having the correct definitions.
Oddly enough, it's very rare to see anybody make any attempt to cite the site that actually does work that way as authoritative.
-
Not anymore. Cannot be unseen.
-
Am I the only one to consistently read "Trump" as "turnip"?
No. Should get on well with our own Mr Potato Head.
-
Bigoted phobia is taking discriminatory or harmful acts against a person because of some factor about themselves which is beyond their control.
So I'm a bigoted murderophobe because I don't invite @Lorne_Kates for coffee? Got it.
-
Oddly enough, it's very rare to see anybody make any attempt to cite the site that actually does work that way as authoritative.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
You can take any wikipedia definition posted in the guacamole thread, pull up the definition of the word from dictionary.com and I guarantee the definitions will be different.
Also, it's not odd that no one attempts to say that conservapedia is authoritative. I know the Narrative says that the evil conservatives are holding back progress and everything would be OK we could just get rid of them, but the reality is that policy has been moving steadily to the left for the past 100 years, no matter which side is nominally in power.
-
Also, it's not odd that no one attempts to say that conservapedia is authoritative.
It's the tumblr of the right.
-
Only one site is actually authoritative about anything.
policy has been moving steadily to the left
Is it 16:15 already?
-
@Fox said:
Bigoted phobia is taking discriminatory or harmful acts against a person because of some factor about themselves which is beyond their control.
So I'm a bigoted murderophobe because I don't invite @Lorne_Kates for coffee? Got it.I like coffee. You hurted me. Ohh, you've hurted me.
-
-
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
I like coffee. You hurted me. Ohh, you've hurted me.
Suicide or it doesn't count.Will you accept tit pics instead?
-
Meh, a bit small for my taste.
-
This place really is turning in to 4Chan.
You say that like it's abadtrans-good thing.
-
You can take any wikipedia definition posted in the guacamole thread, pull up the definition of the word from dictionary.com and I guarantee the definitions will be different.
Of course they are. If they weren't, one would be likely be infringing the other's copyright.
Now to prove your point you'd have to demonstrate that dictionary.com's NPOV is the "more neutral" one. dictionary.com is an IAC company. IAC is a former subsidiary of Home Shopping Network chaired by Barry Diller who is credited for creating Fox Broadcasting Company and sits on the board of Coca Cola.
Home Shopping Network. Fox Broadcasting. Rrrriiight, that's the guys I want to supply the facts for informed debate.Also, it's not odd that no one attempts to say that conservapedia is authoritative. I know the Narrative says that the evil conservatives are holding back progress and everything would be OK we could just get rid of them, but the reality is that policy has been moving steadily to the left for the past 100 years, no matter which side is nominally in power.
If only someone had put an end to it before bitches got voting rights, niggers were considered human beings, poofters could freely roam the streets and whatever other left-wing excess one was fighting against as a good conservative a hundred years ago.
-
before bitches got voting rights
To be fair, the married women's voting record isn't so horrible.
-
@LaoC said:
before bitches got voting rights
To be fair, the married women's voting record isn't so horrible.
Conservative Swiss kept fighting it until 1991 while AFAIK the US succumbed to feminism in 1920.
-
We now have a Laotian SJW English major who is ESL preaching to us about American and Swiss women's suffrage movements. Are you just trying to make @Fox look good by comparison?
-
C'mere, let me slap you.
-
-
It doesn't mean don't chris brown you either. Just use the safe word if you're ever uncomfortable, baby.
*puts ball gag on you*
-
Sorry, you are looking for the gimp.
-
We now have a Laotian SJW English major who is ESL preaching to us about American and Swiss women's suffrage movements.
I was citing some historical facts to the best of my knowledge. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
As for my identity, it's not surprising you got every single word wrong. I'm neither Lao nor an English major; "SJW" ... sure, if you say so.
-
ERR_FILE_NOT_FOUND: gimp-2.8.exe
-
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Heterosexuality is still common here, so it's incorrect to say that we've completely succumbed to the feminists.
-
@LaoC said:
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Heterosexuality is still common here, so it's incorrect to say that we've completely succumbed to the feminists.
Point taken. I was just thinking women's suffrage here, but obviously that's almost as evil as the homosexuality pushed by feminists and commies.
-
Fox Broadcasting. Rrrriiight, that's the guys I want to supply the facts for informed debate.
If they are anything like our @Fox, I wouldn't trust them for shit.
-
I was just thinking women's suffrage here, but obviously that's almost as evil as the homosexuality pushed by feminists and commies.
Even First Wave Feminism had its problems (e.g., advocating for Prohibition). Based on previous discussion, I'm sure we both agree that trying to bully someone into a different sexual orientation is pretty awful.
-
I'm sure we both agree that trying to bully someone into a different sexual orientation is pretty awful.
Only if that person is gay. He thinks it is perfectly acceptable to bully straight people. Privilege and all...
-
Ah, thanks for reminding me.
FoxFOX Broadcasting
FTFYThe distinction is quite important, as FOX is a wholly separate entity from any fox, Fox, or Foxes. And most of us would like to keep it that way.
-
Of course they are. If they weren't, one would be likely be infringing the other's copyright.Now to prove your point you'd have to demonstrate that dictionary.com's NPOV is the "more neutral" one. dictionary.com is an IAC company. IAC is a former subsidiary of Home Shopping Network chaired by Barry Diller who is credited for creating Fox Broadcasting Company and sits on the board of Coca Cola.Home Shopping Network. Fox Broadcasting. Rrrriiight, that's the guys I want to supply the facts for informed debate.
This is the most disingenuous thing I've seen written by someone other than Fox in a long time. Try this: compare the defintions on dictionary.com against your favorite dead-tree dictionary, or Merriam-Webster. Then come back and tell us how biased dictionary.com is in practice.
EDIT: Sorry, forgot this: #SjwsAlwaysLie
If only someone had put an end to it before bitches got voting rights, niggers were considered human beings, poofters could freely roam the streets and whatever other left-wing excess one was fighting against as a good conservative a hundred years ago.
I'm pretty sure no one here is saying that. But don't let facts get in the way of The Causeâ„¢.
-
I'm pretty sure no one here is saying that.
You pretty well implied it with the statement @LaoC quoted.
Also, just because policy is shifting left doesn't mean conservatives aren't holding it back. In every civil rights movement of the past 100 years, conservatives delayed every advancement as much as they could, in some cases resulting in years or decades of continued abuse and injustice.
-
You pretty well implied it with the statement @LaoC quoted.
So you don't know what imply means either.
-
So you don't know what imply means either.
So you don't know what "means" means, either.
-
Given how many other words you've been clearly wrong about, it may not be a good idea for you to challenge me on this one.
-
Given how many other discriminatory implications you've been blind to, it may not be a good idea for you to challenge me on this one.
-
For what it's worth, you obviously know what troll means.
-
I know the Narrative says that the evil conservatives are holding back progress and everything would be OK we could just get rid of them
The tone of this statement seems to indicate your disdain for the idea that conservatives are holding back progress. Or, in other words, that you support, in some fashion, what conservatives are and have been doing, at least enough to not consider it "holding back progress".the reality is that policy has been moving steadily to the left for the past 100 years, no matter which side is nominally in power.
And yet, that movement has not actually been steady, and in fact has been quite sporadic in nature, primarily occurring when progressives were in power. Also, in areas where discrimination has persisted the longest following any major civil rights victory, the side which is nominally in power has been the conservative one. Segregation in the south had to be defused by federal law enforcement. Hundreds of thousands of US citizens, most notably women, racial minorities, and disabled people have been deprived of voting rights, even just in the past five years. Conservatives everywhere have been consistently and continuously attempting to abridge basic rights of GLBTQ people since 2003, with sporadic bursts of discrimination for decades prior to that.So, to support those actions and deny this history of the conservative portion of society and politics, you are implying that the conservatives were right, which is basically what @LaoC was saying, albeit with more of an aim at shoving your bullshit back in your face.
-
Hundreds of thousands of US citizens, most notably women, racial minorities, and disabled people have been deprived of voting rights, even just in the past five years.
How? How have these people been deprived of voting rights, in the past five years, in the USA??
-
The tone of this statement seems to indicate your disdain for the idea that conservatives are holding back progress. Or, in other words, that you support, in some fashion, what conservatives are and have been doing, at least enough to not consider it "holding back progress".
You're new here, so you probably haven't seen the Chesterton quote I've posted a few times. It's also a typical SJW assumption that anyone who is against them is a conservative. Anyway, for the benefit of any other new people, here's the quote:
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.
tl;dr: You don't need to be a conservative to know that at least some of the SJW agenda is misguided.
So, to support those actions and deny this history of the conservative portion of society and politics
I didn't say I supported those actions. I also don't deny that history. #SjwsAlwaysLie
you are implying that the conservatives were right
No I am not. #SjwsAlwaysLie
Now if you're done putting words in my mouth, here's something I really did say:
FUCK OFF
-
-
You don't need to be a conservative to know that at least some of the SJW agenda is misguided.
And yet you consistently argue that the entirety is misguided.I didn't say I supported those actions.
In implying that they were not wrong, you supported them.I also don't deny that history.
Yeah, you did.the reality is that policy has been moving steadily to the left for the past 100 years, no matter which side is nominally in power.
Right there, you completely ignored the fact that the major civil rights victories of the past 100 years have occurred under the watch of progressives.
-
And yet you consistently argue that the entirety is misguided.
So how is libelously calling people murderers OK?
In implying that they were not wrong, you supported them.
So how is libelously calling people murderers OK?
Right there, you completely ignored the fact that the major civil rights victories of the past 100 years have occurred under the watch of progressives.
So how is libelously calling people murderers OK?
Filed under: SHILCPMO
-
You said "infringed". At worst, those people affected were mildly inconvenienced.
-
In every civil rights movement of the past 100 years, conservatives delayed every advancement as much as they could, in some cases resulting in years or decades of continued abuse and injustice.
Yes, but let's not be confused and think that we're talking about the same people over time. All policy is not civil rights, either. And Progressives have had some pretty awful ideas relating to civil rights and especially race. Well, they still do.
http://prospect.org/article/22-states-wave-new-voting-restrictions-threatens-shift-outcomes-tight-races
Lots of shrieking. Par for the course.
-
No, at worst, those people were not allowed to vote.
-
Apparently, you're not done putting words in my mouth. You've also managed to entirely miss the point. Thread muted. (Ironic since it's my thread, but it has fulfilled its intended purpose.)
-
No, at worst, those people were not allowed to vote.
No, at worst they were mildly inconvenienced and just said "Fuck it" and chose not to vote.
-
I just want you to be consistent.
Is that so wrong, @Polygeekery?