Darwin awards thread

[JamJar]

Maybe stop saying things without actual evidence.

[DEADPOOL]

It goes like this

You "Kamala Harris is further to the Left than Stalin"
Someone with a firing synapse "There are no extreme left wing politicians in the USA"
You "GODWINS!!! (makes non-sequitur) I win LOLZ"
SWAFS "Tit"

Yeah. I've seen that before somewhere. Paraphrase what I have actually said to suit your narrative and argue against that instead of anything I have actually said.

No point discussing this any further. Any further attempt to misquote me and all I need do in response is quote from my previous replies.

[moth]

It goes like this

You "Kamala Harris is further to the Left than Stalin"
Someone with a firing synapse "There are no extreme left wing politicians in the USA"
You "GODWINS!!! (makes non-sequitur) I win LOLZ"
SWAFS "Tit"

Yeah. I've seen that before somewhere. Paraphrase what I have actually said to suit your narrative and argue against that instead of anything I have actually said.

No point discussing this any further. Any further attempt to misquote me and all I need do in response is quote from my previous replies.

[DEADPOOL]

Funny how often he turns up when someone can't think of anything sensible to say.

[Slenver]

heavily biased media.

even the left wing mainstream media can't ignore it.

You've said many, many silly things in this thread, but just to pick on a single point - what is this obsession with a 'left-wing mainstream media'? The biggest, most important mainstream news org on the States, by some margin, is Fox News. Which is about as left-wing as Attila the Hun. A lot of the others are centrist, maybe slightly left-leaning.

It's as stupid as constantly referring to Democrats as the 'far-left'. It's just comically ignorant.

[Yambo]

<dumb removed for clarity>
I thought I'd answered that question.

No all you are doing is ignoring what I have said and reformatting it.

No. I answered the question by saying I think you are stupid.

First you say I don't know what apolitical means, then you make some specious argument that "apolitical" does not exist because everything is political. Make your mind up.

I have never said that'apolitical' does not exist because it is clearly quite possible to be apolitical. Stop reading what you think things say and read what is written. It was you who decided that political appointees to the SC make it apolitical. It isn't.

They have allegiance and a political allegiance is an indication of which direction they may lean in lawmaking.

Read your sentence again. You clearly thought when you were writing it that the SC are lawmakers. They are not and were not at the time you were writing. If you want to decide later that they are not lawmakers you should try and remember your earlier stance. It would stop you looking foolish.

I also point out that while the SC should not have a political or partisan bias, it obviously does.

So why did you assert earlier:

The supreme court is apolitical of course and has a slim "Republican" advantage . . .

. . . and don't merely assume you are smarter than everyone else therefore I must be wrong.

There are many on here that will happily tell you I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer so if I can find basic faults with you arguments . . . Think about it.

Answer the question regarding the obsession with packing the courts and try to say something interesting.

OK. Here's something interesting. Throughout the last hundred years or so, maybe longer, both Republican and Democrat parties have tried to pack the Senate and the SC with Republicans and Democrats respectively. It's called electioneering just the same as UK political parties want to fill the HoC with their MPs. The US parties are prevented from filling the Senate and the HoR because the US electorate have a choice. Both parties will find it difficult to pack the Supreme Court with their preferred appointees because the judges are appointed for life and not enough of the judges die within the term(s) of any particular president. Now, if during the period of this incoming president's tenure, lots of (Republican) Supreme Court judges die and are replaced by Democrat leaning judges you might have a point. I can't see it myself though.

Oh, and the Supreme Court are not lawmakers. They are there to interpret the law in line with the Constitution. Governments make law, judges interpret it.

Oh. And what did I say?

It really shouldn't matter if all the judges do is interpret the law impartially

Right now I'm not sure what you believe.

So you're making stuff up which I haven't said and pointing at that as if I must be wrong. Is that the best you can do?

I've quoted what you have said and challenged it. That is not making stuff up. If the source material was better I'd maybe have to work harder.

But that's enough for now I think, I have wood to cut.

[Yorick]

I'm gonna paint a wall and sit and watch it dry

[JamJar]

I'm gonna paint a wall and sit and watch it dry

Are you going to get the Mexicans to pay for it

[Yambo]

They're also planning to introduce an extra couple of Democrat states to cement their position.

Oi DP, if you're still around would you explain what you mean by the sentence I've quoted?

Just how are the Democrat party going to introduce an 'extra couple of Democrat states'. Where are they going to get them from, Canada? Mexico (probably not, not with the Trump wall in the way)?

Maybe they're going to break up Texas and Alaska. I dunno, but I'm really, really interested.

Thanks.

[JamJar]

They're also planning to introduce an extra couple of Democrat states to cement their position.

Oi DP, if you're still around would you explain what you mean by the sentence I've quoted?

Just how are the Democrat party going to introduce an 'extra couple of Democrat states'. Where are they going to get them from, Canada? Mexico (probably not, not with the Trump wall in the way)?

Maybe they're going to break up Texas and Alaska. I dunno, but I'm really, really interested.

Thanks.

I could hazard a guess that he means Washington DC and Puerto Rico, not that I think he is right.

[Yorick]

I'm gonna paint a wall and sit and watch it dry

Are you going to get the Mexicans to pay for it

Si hombre.

[Rockburner]

Is it worth posting a proper Darwin Award story??

Or should I start a new thread?

https://gizmodo.com/psychedelic-mushroo ... 1846044856

[Wreckless Rat]

Is it worth posting a proper Darwin Award story??

Or should I start a new thread?

https://gizmodo.com/psychedelic-mushroo ... 1846044856

Holy f*** some people are stupid.

[Rockburner]

Is it worth posting a proper Darwin Award story??

Or should I start a new thread?

https://gizmodo.com/psychedelic-mushroo ... 1846044856

Holy f*** some people are stupid.

Yeah - I thought so

ok - I'll start a new thread.

(you didn't need to be quite so harsh )

[Wreckless Rat]

Is it worth posting a proper Darwin Award story??

Or should I start a new thread?

https://gizmodo.com/psychedelic-mushroo ... 1846044856

Holy f*** some people are stupid.

Yeah - I thought so

ok - I'll start a new thread.

(you didn't need to be quite so harsh )

lol - I was more thinking the guy who IV'd mushroom soup...

[Wossname]

Probably safer than disinfectant. More stupid? Hmmm...

[gremlin]

Is it worth posting a proper Darwin Award story??

Or should I start a new thread?

https://gizmodo.com/psychedelic-mushroo ... 1846044856

"Fortunately, he survived...the 30-year-old man"

Nothing fortunate about it. He could breed, polluting the gene pool.

[David]

I'm gonna paint a wall and sit and watch it dry

Are you going to get the Mexicans to pay for it

Can i watch too?