Tell me what has increased to over 1,000,000 incidents again this year

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 68
#31
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Actually, the debate answers your question and that’s how the Fathers designed it.

If you aren’t an officeholder at the time of a Senate trial, the trial itself is unconstitutional. Consequently,  a non-officeholder cannot be impeached.
No it didn’t; it just repeated the assertion - and you’re still avoiding it.

Specifically, and I’ll repeat again: on what basis do you think extending a legal process to apply to those no longer in office - I would also make it apply to those who are dead; considering that a) dead people don’t fit the rationale and b) no legal process of punishment extends to people who are dead.

It’s like suggesting that Ford  adding an off road option to a type of car should make it into a space ship.




#32
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@oromagi
I don't know how anyone could apply left/right dichotomies to societies before liberty, equality, fraternity took root.
Liberty and equality are not always the same thing, it's why I don't agree with crossing over 'progressive' with 'liberal'.

Left-wing is the wing that is pro-sharing wealth and pro-balancing things out in more ways than one.

Right-wing is the wing that is pro-keeping what one has (whether rightly earned or not) and pro de-balancing things in favour of whichever tribe/clan/lineage/corporation (yes, corporation even) one associates with.

Guy Fawkes certainly was right-wing in ways but one cannot simply dub him as that, he had left-wing and sheer wingless liberalism as motives.
#33
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
-->@oromagi
I don't know how anyone could apply left/right dichotomies to societies before liberty, equality, fraternity took root.
Liberty and equality are not always the same thing, it's why I don't agree with crossing over 'progressive' with 'liberal'.
Liberty and equality are two very different things that together make the pillars of liberalism.  A King can be free but not equal.  A prisoner can be equal but not free.

Progressivism is the pursuit of social reform and improvement.  Prince Charles is Progressive but he's no Liberal.  Boris Johnson is Liberal but he's not particularly Progressive.

Left-wing is the wing that is pro-sharing wealth and pro-balancing things out in more ways than one.
Left WIng/Right WIng were formally defined by the newly formed French National Assembly in 1789.
The Left Wing prioritizes human rights before property rights.  Left-wingers aren't necessarily pro-sharing wealth.
The Right Wing prioritizes property rights before human rights.

Right-wing is the wing that is pro-keeping what one has (whether rightly earned or not)
Property rights.
and pro de-balancing things in favour of whichever tribe/clan/lineage/corporation (yes, corporation even) one associates with.
That is tribalism, nationalism, racism, jingoism, etc.  One can be a right wing nationalist without necessarily seeking advantage for some sub-group.

Guy Fawkes certainly was right-wing in ways but one cannot simply dub him as that, he had left-wing and sheer wingless liberalism as motives.
Guy Fawkes was an English Subject and not a lord.  He essentially had no human rights the State was bound to respect.  Civil Rights for English citizens were first established in 1689.   Fawkes did not believe that Protestants and Catholics should be equal before the State.  Fawkes did not believe that the King or his subjects should be free to practice Protestantism or indeed be free from Papal oversight.  Therefore Fawkes was no Liberal.

Fawkes felt he was justified to murder hundreds and provoke civil war in the pursuit of enforcing a uniform religious belief in England.  Therefore, Fawkes failed to respect even the most basic human right- life.  Therefore, Fawkes was no Left-winger.
#34
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Specifically, and I’ll repeat again: on what basis do you think extending a legal process to apply to those no longer in office - I would also make it apply to those who are dead; considering that a) dead people don’t fit the rationale and b) no legal process of punishment extends to people who are dead.
If you’re saying that I believe dead people can be impeached, I don’t. But DR’s implications with his Constitutional interpretation leave the option on the table.

I don’t think Washington nor Clinton can be impeached right now.
#35
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@oromagi
Property rights.
Not necessarily, before official property rights it just came down to survival of the fittest to defend what they owned, that was right wing of a different variety. The left-wing would be the strong in an area pooling together to defend the weak, not just of their own tribe but against invaders and working alongside tribes they hold as mortal rivals.

The innate status of politics is right-wing, left-wing politics is progressed into when outside threats are seen as worse than anything within. It's why Hitler failed pathetically to maintain his Right-Wing empire but USSR far outlasted it.

Even when corrupt and evil, a group that share and have each other's backs are far superior to a group that are ultimately rooting against the people they need the most (Germany, Italy, Japan for instance).
#36
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@oromagi
You seem to be incapable of grasping abstract concepts at this point. It's like you literally think there was no left-wing or right-wing to politics before the phrases to describe the sides of politics were invented.

It's like saying until we had the word 'lemur' there was no lemur, it's just ridiculous but I'll let you play around with this nonsense.

There's always been left-wing vs right-wing dynamics in politics. Always has been and always will be. Ancient Egypt was the epitome of right-wing politics and is one of the oldest civilisations in existence.
#37
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ILikePie5
If you’re saying that I believe dead people can be impeached, I don’t. But DR’s implications with his Constitutional interpretation leave the option on the table.

I don’t think Washington nor Clinton can be impeached right now.
No its not - as I keep explaining; you’re just making this up, and frankly is so stupid I’m trying to figure out for either a.) why you believe something so stupid or b.) why you would troll with something so stupid.

Again, as I have explained (and you have dodged 3 times now) - firstly: the motivation of covering former officials via impeachment is to prevent them serving in public office - which doesn’t apply to dead people. Meaning that arguing this is what he’s saying is absurdly ridiculous.

Secondly: the idea that one must leap to the conclusion that allowing impeachment of former officials must definitely also apply or would encourage people to apply this to dead individuals for which no punishment can be exacted - is also absurdly ridiculous.

It’s an obvious and colossal straw man which you still haven’t explained other than to reiterate the same straw man.
#38
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
No its not - as I keep explaining; you’re just making this up, and frankly is so stupid I’m trying to figure out for either a.) why you believe something so stupid or b.) why you would troll with something so stupid.

Again, as I have explained (and you have dodged 3 times now) - firstly: the motivation of covering former officials via impeachment is to prevent them serving in public office - which doesn’t apply to dead people. Meaning that arguing this is what he’s saying is absurdly ridiculous.

Secondly: the idea that one must leap to the conclusion that allowing impeachment of former officials must definitely also apply or would encourage people to apply this to dead individuals for which no punishment can be exacted - is also absurdly ridiculous. 

It’s an obvious and colossal straw man which you still haven’t explained other than to reiterate the same straw man.

You’re clearly not understanding my position on the issue lol. I literally agree with you position, but DR’s interpretation of the Constitution directly supports this ridiculous belief.

His belief is that a President can be impeached and tried for actions done in his last day of office even after the individual leaves office. With that interpretation, there is no Constitutional restriction on who can be impeached, whether dead or alive. After all, it is only a political process.

My interpretation (and frankly that of the Founding Fathers) defines “President” as the legal officeholder during the time of impeachment or trial. DR’s does not. He believes Bush could be impeached for crimes he committed during the last day, because you have to be able to hold people accountable. It’s like giving a medal posthumously.
#39
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Boris Johnson is not Liberal btw and Prince Charles is not at all Progressive. 

I don't even know what these things mean. Ex-Prince Harry was progressive and left the Royal family due to the peer pressure of them to conform. I have no doubt they pushed hard on him to avoid marrying a woman that wasn't Caucasian. 

Boris Johnson may be somewhat liberal-ish but I'd just call him a centrist overall, he doesn't even have any agenda other than staying in power and blabbering nonsense to appease just enough simpletons to vote him the next time around. He was 100% anti-brexit just 2 years prior to being ardently pro-brexit and then reverted to being for a 'soft brexit' after being one of the poster boys for brexit. It's just ridiculous really, he simply takes whatever stance he finds a gap in the political market to take.
#40
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re clearly not understanding my position on the issue lol. I literally agree with you position, but DR’s interpretation of the Constitution directly supports this ridiculous belief.
No; I understand completely, exactly and specifically what you’re saying. If you paid attention I was pretty clearly repeating what it was you were saying in the posts above. The issue is not me not understanding what you’re saying, it’s that what you’re saying is a colossal absurd strawman that is so emphatically illogical, that one must question the proclivities one the one making it.

It’s clearly NOT DRs position or interpretation, nor can it possibly be thought of as much because a.) the motivating factors clearly and obviously don’t apply to someone who is dead c.) there is literally no rational reason why a sane person would conclude that an interpretation of a process that would include both current and previous office holders would somehow also definitely mean that the process would also apply to dead people. Given that the premise that the person a punitive process is designed to punish must be alive, is so generally obvious that one would not expect it to need to be explicit, no? 

Hence the question - do you believe this absurd straw man, or do you know it’s an absurd straw man, in which case why on earth did you go for something so absurd?
Topic's author
#41
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
@ILikePie5
I find the argument you're having a bit absurd, talking around the issue of when a federal officer can be impeached, with neither of you consulting the source. The Constitution tells all, and rather simply. Article I, section 2, clause 5 says only that the House has the power to impeach, and no other body. Article I, section 3, clause 6 declares that only the Senate tries cases of impeachment, and clause 7 that "judgment in cases of impeachment  shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."  

Seems clear that any former officer is not impeachable, nor triable in a case of impeachment, nor, certainly, anyone who is dead, whether they died in office, or not. If they died in office, they have been removed from office, and are no longer eligible to hold a subsequent office, so all that impeachment and trial can do has been accomplished by other means. This clearly makes impeachment a political, not a legal act.
#42
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s clearly NOT DRs position or interpretation, nor can it possibly be thought of as much because a.) the motivating factors clearly and obviously don’t apply to someone who is dead c.) there is literally no rational reason why a sane person would conclude that an interpretation of a process that would include both current and previous office holders would somehow also definitely mean that the process would also apply to dead people. Given that the premise that the person a punitive process is designed to punish must be alive, is so generally obvious that one would not expect it to need to be explicit, no? 

Hence the question - do you believe this absurd straw man, or do you know it’s an absurd straw man, in which case why on earth did you go for something so absurd?
His interpretation of the Constitution implies they can be impeached. It’s really simple. 

There’s two options: only current officeholders can  be impeached/tried in the Senate

Or, non-current but previous officeholders can be impeached/tried in the Senate. 

The latter interpretation inherently implies that the Constitution says dead Presidents can be impeached and convicted. 

Non-current, previous officeholders is a set that includes dead people. And since impeachment is a political process, all it does is tarnishes reputation for the individual convicted. There’s your “punishment.”
#43
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@949havoc
Seems clear that any former officer is not impeachable, nor triable in a case of impeachment, nor, certainly, anyone who is dead, whether they died in office, or not. If they died in office, they have been removed from office, and are no longer eligible to hold a subsequent office, so all that impeachment and trial can do has been accomplished by other means. This clearly makes impeachment a political, not a legal act.
I completely agree. The problem isn’t my interpretation, it’s DR’s interpretation in my debate with him. His interpretation’s impact involves impeachment and conviction of dead Presidents.
Topic's author
#44
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@ILikePie5
Yeah, I should have included DR in my #41 post
#45
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ILikePie5
His interpretation of the Constitution implies they can be impeached. It’s really simple. 

There’s two options: only current officeholders can  be impeached/tried in the Senate

Or, non-current but previous officeholders can be impeached/tried in the Senate. 

The latter interpretation inherently implies that the Constitution says dead Presidents can be impeached and convicted. 

Non-current, previous officeholders is a set that includes dead people. And since impeachment is a political process, all it does is tarnishes reputation for the individual convicted. There’s your “punishment.”

Again, no:

It’s clearly NOT DRs position or interpretation, nor can it possibly be thought of as much because a.) the motivating factors clearly and obviously don’t apply to someone who is dead - specifically the prescribed constitutional punishment of preventing them from serving in office again doesn’t apply and tarnishing their reputation is not a legally recognized punishment, let alone a constitutional one.  b.) there is literally no rational reason why a sane person would conclude that an interpretation of a process that would include both current and previous office holders would somehow also definitely mean that the process would also apply to dead people - which it doesn’t. Dead people can’t be charged or tried in criminal cases: and interpretation of language for impeachment doesn’t suddenly reverse that - any more that the suggestion that extending the insider trading act to include current and former employees of a company - would magically extend to dead people.

The fact that you’re still beating this dead horse is even more absurd: and frankly, I don’t know which is worse at this point - believing it or not believing it.
#46
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Go read miscarriage, still birth and infant mortality statistics and you will be suicidal.
I know about that well, unfortunately. I don’t see why I can’t also mourn abortion though 
#47
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
How tf did this thread morph into a debate about impeachment lol 
Topic's author
#48
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@thett3
Good question.
My best answer is that no one owns these threads, particularly not the originator.
#49
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s clearly NOT DRs position or interpretation, nor can it possibly be thought of as much because a.) the motivating factors clearly and obviously don’t apply to someone who is dead - specifically the prescribed constitutional punishment of preventing them from serving in office again doesn’t apply and tarnishing their reputation is not a legally recognized punishment, let alone a constitutional one.  b.) there is literally no rational reason why a sane person would conclude that an interpretation of a process that would include both current and previous office holders would somehow also definitely mean that the process would also apply to dead people - which it doesn’t. Dead people can’t be charged or tried in criminal cases: and interpretation of language for impeachment doesn’t suddenly reverse that - any more that the suggestion that extending the insider trading act to include current and former employees of a company - would magically extend to dead people.

The fact that you’re still beating this dead horse is even more absurd: and frankly, I don’t know which is worse at this point - believing it or not believing it.
You do you my man. Makes sense to me. I can’t help it if you don’t understand my position. Havoc understands it pretty?
#50
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ILikePie5
You do you my man. Makes sense to me. I can’t help it if you don’t understand my position. Havoc understands it pretty?
I understand your position - the position is just patently absurd for the reasons above. The basic principle of law that you can’t sue or charge a dead person because they are no longer entities doesn’t magically cease to apply because you want to win an argument….

But hey, havoc understands: which is probably far worse of an indictment of your argument than I could ever make.
#51
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,159
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m telling you that you’re not understanding my position. You’re saying it’s idiotic to impeach/convict a dead person, I agree. But that’s exactly what DR’s position entails. You can’t sue a dead person because that’s a legal process.

Impeachment is inherently a political process, and per DR’s position the Constitution wouldn’t stop a hypothetical impeachment of George Washington.


#52
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
For sure.

What you mourn for is relative to how your sensibilities are set, in terms of ideologies and moral selectivity etc.

Some people mourn for the millions of animals that a slaughtered every day.....Do you also choose this as a focus of your selective mourning?

What about all the lives lost due to the U.S. led war on terror?

Are you absolutely moral?

Or are you a typical human, picker and chooser?
#53
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Impeachment is inherently a political process
Which is part of the law, and operates under principles of law… 

and per DR’s position the Constitution wouldn’t stop a hypothetical impeachment of George Washington.
Yes it would - because of the two reasons above. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it less ridiculous.


#54
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@zedvictor4
What you mourn for is relative to how your sensibilities are set, in terms of ideologies and moral selectivity etc.
Yes and since I think it’s a great moral wrong the prevalence of abortion in society depresses me. Why is this a problem for you? 

Some people mourn for the millions of animals that a slaughtered every day.....Do you also choose this as a focus of your selective mourning?
No, because I don’t think slaughtering an animal to eat it is immoral. I do however think factory farming is incredibly immoral which is why I only buy grass fed/free range etc meats even though it’s twice as expensive 

What about all the lives lost due to the U.S. led war on terror?
Sometimes when I think about the war on terror I get so angry that I can’t even put it into words. Bush could have done ANYTHING after 9/11 and what he is was start two stupid wars that killed a million people 

Are you absolutely moral?
Not even close 
#55
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@RationalMadman
->@oromagi
You seem to be incapable of grasping abstract concepts at this point. It's like you literally think there was no left-wing or right-wing to politics before the phrases to describe the sides of politics were invented.
Yes but more specifically, before the notion of natural human rights was popularized.  The Left/Right distinction is nonsense before the notion of individual civil rights came to be.

I am defining RIGHT here as "Complying with justice, correctness or reason; correct, just, true."

It's like saying until we had the word 'lemur' there was no lemur, it's just ridiculous but I'll let you play around with this nonsense.
More like knowing that word LEMUR comes from the Latin for ghost, so if you come across a reference older than 1758 the author is likely  thinking of ghosts and not primates.  Calling Fawkes a left-winger is an anachronism- applying a more modern conception to a less modern actor.

There's always been left-wing vs right-wing dynamics in politics. Always has been and always will be.
If we agree that the left/right distinction was defined at the Tennis Courts of Paris as a human rights/property rights distinction of priority and we agree with Wikipedia when that encyclopedia explains:

Ancient peoples did not think of universal human rights in the same way we do today.  The true forerunner of human-rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval natural law tradition that became prominent during the European Enlightenment. From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the 20th century.

17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. In Britain in 1689, the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right each made a range of oppressive governmental actions, illegal.
Then we see that in Fawkes time, any right a subject might claim was ultimately derived from the Monarch who derived her right from God.  You can't claim that Fawkes secretly believed that human rights preceded property rights because no contemporary fact supports that claim and indeed the notion of human rights was not popularly understood.  Nor do any of Fawkes known activities support the notion that Fawkes had any concern for the lives or freedoms of non-Catholics.  You like the popular use of the Guy Fawkes as an Anarchist symbol so you anachronistically assume Fawkes would share some of your political outlook.

Ancient Egypt was the epitome of right-wing politics and is one of the oldest civilisations in existence.
Another silly anachronism.  All rights in Ancient Egypt were held by an elite group of Royal householders who derived their authority by claiming descendancy from Gods.  There is no evidence of any concept of citizenship, individual property rights, or natural human rights.  To say that Ramses II was a right-winger and Moses a left-winger would be to apply the square pegs of modern political distinctions to the round holes of ancient religious belief.
#56
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Going back to the original post for a moment, I’m going to use 5examples:

- If someone manages to transfer their consciousness onto a machine - I think destroying the machine is Murder.
- If someone manages to do the above, wants to make it permanent - and kills their body: I don’t think you can treat it as suicide.
- with the above, if someone else kills that persons body - I wouldn’t consider that murder.
- If someone is in a persistent vegetative state, and isn’t really there any more - I support euthanasia.
- if  Caesar from planet of the apes, or a self aware machine managed to come into existence; and someone killed them or destroyed the machine in which they were running: I would consider that murder.

What comes out of this, for me, is the clear picture that simply having human DNA, or being considered human - is not in and of itself enough to warrant protection; our minds, feelings, emotion, etc: is inherently part of that determination.

While I don’t know when an unborn child should be considered as having those rights to some degree; it’s pretty clear that at the early stages of pregnancy they very muxh don’t.


#57
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@oromagi
All rights in Ancient Egypt were held by an elite group of Royal householders who derived their authority by claiming descendancy from Gods. 
Very little difference to any right-wing empire that formed since then, just took it to the extreme. 

Extreme social conservatism, brutal inequality, status of untouchability by those that were wealthy and supreme over the poor who had to work solely for the gain of those who ran the place and a hierarchy within it that rewarded those driven by greed and punished those driven by genuine willingness to be humble and hardworking.

It's the epitome of right-wing politics.

I'm done with you trolling me though, fuck off with this shit. You got an issue with me having a guy fawkes pic, research what Hong Kong protesters wore against China's Tyranny, research what women's rights defenders wear in protest in South America. You can fuck off with this utter bullshit calling me a poster boy for Trump or trying to troll me into feeling I can't have my beautiful profile pic, you have not had a good-looking avatar since you joined the website, get some taste.
#58
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
You got an issue with me having a guy fawkes pic,
False.    I had not even noticed your profile pic until you pointed it out.  As I said yesterday, I'm putting up a Guy Fawkes profile pic tomorrow.  I have no objection to your use of Fawkes' likeness, even in the misconceived modern context.  Greyparrot said that Jan 6th traitors were victims like Guy Fawkes, which led me to assert that Guy Fawkes was no victim.

 You can fuck off with this utter bullshit calling me a poster boy for Trump
Paranoid delusion

or trying to troll me into feeling I can't have my beautiful profile pic, you have not had a good-looking avatar since you joined the website, get some taste.
I have no interest and have expressed no interest in your profile pic.  Whatever feelings you are having about this conversation have nothing to do with me.

Please note, since this conversation has strayed far from fauxlaw's OP, I have started a new TOPIC for any continuation of this thread.
#59
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@oromagi
no paranoia at all, nobody here, including the OP, had anything to do with guy fawkes. your post was 100% to me
#60
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
@rationalmadman

POST#18

Truly, dude.  I did not even notice your pic until you brought it up