Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

lilnuggetbob    

Rank #6724 on Comments
lilnuggetbob Avatar Level 243 Comments: Doinitrite
Offline
Send mail to lilnuggetbob Block lilnuggetbob Invite lilnuggetbob to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Steam Profile: http://steamcommunity.com/id/lilnuggetbob
Video Games Played: Garry's mod, Arma 2 OA, War thunder
Date Signed Up:3/22/2012
Last Login:7/11/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#14366
Comment Ranking:#6724
Highest Content Rank:#1236
Highest Comment Rank:#1076
Content Thumbs: 9165 total,  10562 ,  1397
Comment Thumbs: 4393 total,  5898 ,  1505
Content Level Progress: 63% (63/100)
Level 191 Content: Anon Annihilator → Level 192 Content: Anon Annihilator
Comment Level Progress: 16% (16/100)
Level 243 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 244 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:2
Content Views:317734
Times Content Favorited:665 times
Total Comments Made:2316
FJ Points:4572
Favorite Tags: comp (3) | to (3) | bad (2) | Cute (2) | gmod (2) | How (2) | is (2) | Russian (2) | tags (2) | the (2) | Time (2) | WTF (2) | youtube (2)

latest user's comments

#26 - also Surely the mountains bring him forth food  [+] (21 new replies) 10/16/2013 on Evolution Is A Lie 0
User avatar #28 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Oh, BTW, HUMANS wrote the bible, right? The last sauropod died MILLIONS of years before humans could even clunk rocks together.
User avatar #31 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
If you want to read some more, here:

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Job-40-1_40-24/

Or you may be able to find a bible in your home. and when you do, flip to Job chaper 40.
User avatar #29 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
"Last time i check according to evolution, sauropods didn't live 5000 years ago"

Or whatever dinosaur it was.
User avatar #76 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
No dinosaur ever ate grass. Ever. Want to know why? Because grass did not exist 65 million years ago or before that.
User avatar #77 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Surely the mountains bring him forth food.

And did you even read my last comment?

User avatar #78 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Which last comment? Again, as someone has already said, either that Bible phrase is incredbly wrong (as no dinosaur was large enough to stand on a plain and eat from a mountain), or incredibly irrelevant. Why irrelevant? Because it describes nothing more than a cryptic mythical creature. You're obviously not interpreting it literally. Who would? But by doing so your interpretation is just that. AN interpretation. You prove absolutely nothing by referring to the Bible.

Shit I don't even know what your point is.
User avatar #79 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry for the large amount of comments.

And it was implying of a massive creature that was a herbivore with a massive body & tail.

And how the bible would know about these creatures 1000's of years before we did.
User avatar #80 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Wait wait, where did you prove that the Bible's actually referring to a dinosaur as opposed to anything else, say, a dragon? You know, that mythical creature of which versions are found in every single culture around the world? Even if you can prove the Bible is actually referring to dinosaurs, you need to convince me why that's significant in any way.
User avatar #81 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Dragons were carnivores in legend.

The bible says that it is a herbivore.
User avatar #83 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
No they weren't. Not all of them. Besides, why is that relevant? Oh, and please attempt to answer all my arguments instead of moving the goalposts.
User avatar #85 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
I am answering your questions, you said: "Wait wait, where did you prove that the Bible's actually referring to a dinosaur as opposed to anything else, say, a dragon?"

And the bible does talk about dragons, separated from the leviathan.
User avatar #125 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Ah, my bad. Iron age, then. Good, you've conceded the argument, admitting your point is moot considering you have no evidence and are working from an assumption.

That, my friend, is intellectual honesty. Glad this argument is over, seeya.
User avatar #110 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
What? Seriously? Man, I thought you were more civil than that, at least. You were trying to prove some bronze age guys two to three thousand years ago knew about dinosaurs. Yeah, possible, as I've pointed out. You then proceed to state that they knew, or thought, that if they were actually referring to dinosaurs, they were herbivores or at least omnivores. You asked me why they could've known that, I come up with the most plausible answers. How exactly is that yelling at you for not bringing facts? Please, I'm anxious to know. Note that I'm tagging along with the assumption (note the definition of assumption in your diary, it's very useful) that the writers of the book of Job are actually talking about dinosaurs. Which is quite an assumption to make in the first place as there's no evidence for it, as I've repeatedly shown.

Over to you.
User avatar #115 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Iron age BTW
They talked about iron.

i am assuming that they are talking about dinosaurs, because of the very similar resemblance of their desciption, you are saying no, because they don't.
User avatar #102 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
By looking at their teeth or simply making it up. Next.
User avatar #105 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
So you think some stuff, then i say some stuff that is written down by them, and you yell at me for not bringing facts?
*sigh*
User avatar #100 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
For some reason I can't reply to your last comment. Again, you refuse to answer any of my enquiries. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't put a grain of evidence behind your claim? Please address my arguments.

Sheesh, I'll even HELP you make your argument. The men who wrote the book of Job a few thousand years ago, found dinosaur fossils and thought they belonged to a gigantic creatures. Maybe they didn't find it, but the story was passed to them and they wrote it down. There, plausible proof. Not very hard, but possible.
User avatar #101 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
How did they know it ate plants?

And by the way, threads can only be so big, and we hit the limit.
User avatar #87 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
What about the part where you have to prove that the Bible's actually referring to dinosaurs as opposed to any number of known or unknown other real, fictional or mythological creature, or even none of the former? What about the part where you have to prove why, if the Bible is referring to dinosaurs, this is even significant?

Yes, the bible talks about dragons. This also happens to be describing the behemoth, not the leviathan, which is a completely different biblical mythological creature. You also only attempted to rebuke my suggestion, not my argument.

Seriously, some people have never bothered to learn basic logical thought. That's not meant as an insult, it's just unfortunate you haven't learned argumentative practice and as such latch on to non-causal correlation.
#106 - abnormalgames (10/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #88 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry, been arguing for the last 30-40 minutes.
I get a little Burnt out after typing the same thing 8 times.

And yes i said the leviathan, not the behemoth, my bad.

But the description very well fits dinosaurs like sauropods.

That is my main point.
#22 - Demons dont eat grass....  [+] (23 new replies) 10/16/2013 on Evolution Is A Lie 0
User avatar #24 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Neither did Sauropods.
User avatar #26 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
also

Surely the mountains bring him forth food
User avatar #28 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Oh, BTW, HUMANS wrote the bible, right? The last sauropod died MILLIONS of years before humans could even clunk rocks together.
User avatar #31 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
If you want to read some more, here:

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Job-40-1_40-24/

Or you may be able to find a bible in your home. and when you do, flip to Job chaper 40.
User avatar #29 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
"Last time i check according to evolution, sauropods didn't live 5000 years ago"

Or whatever dinosaur it was.
User avatar #76 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
No dinosaur ever ate grass. Ever. Want to know why? Because grass did not exist 65 million years ago or before that.
User avatar #77 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Surely the mountains bring him forth food.

And did you even read my last comment?

User avatar #78 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Which last comment? Again, as someone has already said, either that Bible phrase is incredbly wrong (as no dinosaur was large enough to stand on a plain and eat from a mountain), or incredibly irrelevant. Why irrelevant? Because it describes nothing more than a cryptic mythical creature. You're obviously not interpreting it literally. Who would? But by doing so your interpretation is just that. AN interpretation. You prove absolutely nothing by referring to the Bible.

Shit I don't even know what your point is.
User avatar #79 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry for the large amount of comments.

And it was implying of a massive creature that was a herbivore with a massive body & tail.

And how the bible would know about these creatures 1000's of years before we did.
User avatar #80 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Wait wait, where did you prove that the Bible's actually referring to a dinosaur as opposed to anything else, say, a dragon? You know, that mythical creature of which versions are found in every single culture around the world? Even if you can prove the Bible is actually referring to dinosaurs, you need to convince me why that's significant in any way.
User avatar #81 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Dragons were carnivores in legend.

The bible says that it is a herbivore.
User avatar #83 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
No they weren't. Not all of them. Besides, why is that relevant? Oh, and please attempt to answer all my arguments instead of moving the goalposts.
User avatar #85 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
I am answering your questions, you said: "Wait wait, where did you prove that the Bible's actually referring to a dinosaur as opposed to anything else, say, a dragon?"

And the bible does talk about dragons, separated from the leviathan.
User avatar #125 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Ah, my bad. Iron age, then. Good, you've conceded the argument, admitting your point is moot considering you have no evidence and are working from an assumption.

That, my friend, is intellectual honesty. Glad this argument is over, seeya.
User avatar #110 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
What? Seriously? Man, I thought you were more civil than that, at least. You were trying to prove some bronze age guys two to three thousand years ago knew about dinosaurs. Yeah, possible, as I've pointed out. You then proceed to state that they knew, or thought, that if they were actually referring to dinosaurs, they were herbivores or at least omnivores. You asked me why they could've known that, I come up with the most plausible answers. How exactly is that yelling at you for not bringing facts? Please, I'm anxious to know. Note that I'm tagging along with the assumption (note the definition of assumption in your diary, it's very useful) that the writers of the book of Job are actually talking about dinosaurs. Which is quite an assumption to make in the first place as there's no evidence for it, as I've repeatedly shown.

Over to you.
User avatar #115 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Iron age BTW
They talked about iron.

i am assuming that they are talking about dinosaurs, because of the very similar resemblance of their desciption, you are saying no, because they don't.
User avatar #102 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
By looking at their teeth or simply making it up. Next.
User avatar #105 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
So you think some stuff, then i say some stuff that is written down by them, and you yell at me for not bringing facts?
*sigh*
User avatar #100 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
For some reason I can't reply to your last comment. Again, you refuse to answer any of my enquiries. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't put a grain of evidence behind your claim? Please address my arguments.

Sheesh, I'll even HELP you make your argument. The men who wrote the book of Job a few thousand years ago, found dinosaur fossils and thought they belonged to a gigantic creatures. Maybe they didn't find it, but the story was passed to them and they wrote it down. There, plausible proof. Not very hard, but possible.
User avatar #101 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
How did they know it ate plants?

And by the way, threads can only be so big, and we hit the limit.
User avatar #87 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
What about the part where you have to prove that the Bible's actually referring to dinosaurs as opposed to any number of known or unknown other real, fictional or mythological creature, or even none of the former? What about the part where you have to prove why, if the Bible is referring to dinosaurs, this is even significant?

Yes, the bible talks about dragons. This also happens to be describing the behemoth, not the leviathan, which is a completely different biblical mythological creature. You also only attempted to rebuke my suggestion, not my argument.

Seriously, some people have never bothered to learn basic logical thought. That's not meant as an insult, it's just unfortunate you haven't learned argumentative practice and as such latch on to non-causal correlation.
#106 - abnormalgames (10/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #88 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry, been arguing for the last 30-40 minutes.
I get a little Burnt out after typing the same thing 8 times.

And yes i said the leviathan, not the behemoth, my bad.

But the description very well fits dinosaurs like sauropods.

That is my main point.
#20 - No, the verse i was talking about said Behemoth: Job …  [+] (25 new replies) 10/16/2013 on Evolution Is A Lie 0
User avatar #21 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Ah, Behemoth. A rather benign, lesser demon.
User avatar #22 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Demons dont eat grass....
User avatar #24 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Neither did Sauropods.
User avatar #26 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
also

Surely the mountains bring him forth food
User avatar #28 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Oh, BTW, HUMANS wrote the bible, right? The last sauropod died MILLIONS of years before humans could even clunk rocks together.
User avatar #31 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
If you want to read some more, here:

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Job-40-1_40-24/

Or you may be able to find a bible in your home. and when you do, flip to Job chaper 40.
User avatar #29 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
"Last time i check according to evolution, sauropods didn't live 5000 years ago"

Or whatever dinosaur it was.
User avatar #76 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
No dinosaur ever ate grass. Ever. Want to know why? Because grass did not exist 65 million years ago or before that.
User avatar #77 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Surely the mountains bring him forth food.

And did you even read my last comment?

User avatar #78 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Which last comment? Again, as someone has already said, either that Bible phrase is incredbly wrong (as no dinosaur was large enough to stand on a plain and eat from a mountain), or incredibly irrelevant. Why irrelevant? Because it describes nothing more than a cryptic mythical creature. You're obviously not interpreting it literally. Who would? But by doing so your interpretation is just that. AN interpretation. You prove absolutely nothing by referring to the Bible.

Shit I don't even know what your point is.
User avatar #79 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry for the large amount of comments.

And it was implying of a massive creature that was a herbivore with a massive body & tail.

And how the bible would know about these creatures 1000's of years before we did.
User avatar #80 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Wait wait, where did you prove that the Bible's actually referring to a dinosaur as opposed to anything else, say, a dragon? You know, that mythical creature of which versions are found in every single culture around the world? Even if you can prove the Bible is actually referring to dinosaurs, you need to convince me why that's significant in any way.
User avatar #81 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Dragons were carnivores in legend.

The bible says that it is a herbivore.
User avatar #83 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
No they weren't. Not all of them. Besides, why is that relevant? Oh, and please attempt to answer all my arguments instead of moving the goalposts.
User avatar #85 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
I am answering your questions, you said: "Wait wait, where did you prove that the Bible's actually referring to a dinosaur as opposed to anything else, say, a dragon?"

And the bible does talk about dragons, separated from the leviathan.
User avatar #125 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Ah, my bad. Iron age, then. Good, you've conceded the argument, admitting your point is moot considering you have no evidence and are working from an assumption.

That, my friend, is intellectual honesty. Glad this argument is over, seeya.
User avatar #110 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
What? Seriously? Man, I thought you were more civil than that, at least. You were trying to prove some bronze age guys two to three thousand years ago knew about dinosaurs. Yeah, possible, as I've pointed out. You then proceed to state that they knew, or thought, that if they were actually referring to dinosaurs, they were herbivores or at least omnivores. You asked me why they could've known that, I come up with the most plausible answers. How exactly is that yelling at you for not bringing facts? Please, I'm anxious to know. Note that I'm tagging along with the assumption (note the definition of assumption in your diary, it's very useful) that the writers of the book of Job are actually talking about dinosaurs. Which is quite an assumption to make in the first place as there's no evidence for it, as I've repeatedly shown.

Over to you.
User avatar #115 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Iron age BTW
They talked about iron.

i am assuming that they are talking about dinosaurs, because of the very similar resemblance of their desciption, you are saying no, because they don't.
User avatar #102 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
By looking at their teeth or simply making it up. Next.
User avatar #105 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
So you think some stuff, then i say some stuff that is written down by them, and you yell at me for not bringing facts?
*sigh*
User avatar #100 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
For some reason I can't reply to your last comment. Again, you refuse to answer any of my enquiries. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't put a grain of evidence behind your claim? Please address my arguments.

Sheesh, I'll even HELP you make your argument. The men who wrote the book of Job a few thousand years ago, found dinosaur fossils and thought they belonged to a gigantic creatures. Maybe they didn't find it, but the story was passed to them and they wrote it down. There, plausible proof. Not very hard, but possible.
User avatar #101 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
How did they know it ate plants?

And by the way, threads can only be so big, and we hit the limit.
User avatar #87 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
What about the part where you have to prove that the Bible's actually referring to dinosaurs as opposed to any number of known or unknown other real, fictional or mythological creature, or even none of the former? What about the part where you have to prove why, if the Bible is referring to dinosaurs, this is even significant?

Yes, the bible talks about dragons. This also happens to be describing the behemoth, not the leviathan, which is a completely different biblical mythological creature. You also only attempted to rebuke my suggestion, not my argument.

Seriously, some people have never bothered to learn basic logical thought. That's not meant as an insult, it's just unfortunate you haven't learned argumentative practice and as such latch on to non-causal correlation.
#106 - abnormalgames (10/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #88 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry, been arguing for the last 30-40 minutes.
I get a little Burnt out after typing the same thing 8 times.

And yes i said the leviathan, not the behemoth, my bad.

But the description very well fits dinosaurs like sauropods.

That is my main point.
#18 - Sorry, i think it was, my bad.  [+] (27 new replies) 10/16/2013 on Evolution Is A Lie 0
User avatar #19 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Yeah, there's a difference between the largest demon controlled by Beelzebub and a plant eating animal closer related to a chicken than a lizard.
User avatar #20 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
No, the verse i was talking about said Behemoth:

Job Chapter 40
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.
User avatar #21 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Ah, Behemoth. A rather benign, lesser demon.
User avatar #22 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Demons dont eat grass....
User avatar #24 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Neither did Sauropods.
User avatar #26 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
also

Surely the mountains bring him forth food
User avatar #28 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Oh, BTW, HUMANS wrote the bible, right? The last sauropod died MILLIONS of years before humans could even clunk rocks together.
User avatar #31 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
If you want to read some more, here:

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Job-40-1_40-24/

Or you may be able to find a bible in your home. and when you do, flip to Job chaper 40.
User avatar #29 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
"Last time i check according to evolution, sauropods didn't live 5000 years ago"

Or whatever dinosaur it was.
User avatar #76 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
No dinosaur ever ate grass. Ever. Want to know why? Because grass did not exist 65 million years ago or before that.
User avatar #77 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Surely the mountains bring him forth food.

And did you even read my last comment?

User avatar #78 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Which last comment? Again, as someone has already said, either that Bible phrase is incredbly wrong (as no dinosaur was large enough to stand on a plain and eat from a mountain), or incredibly irrelevant. Why irrelevant? Because it describes nothing more than a cryptic mythical creature. You're obviously not interpreting it literally. Who would? But by doing so your interpretation is just that. AN interpretation. You prove absolutely nothing by referring to the Bible.

Shit I don't even know what your point is.
User avatar #79 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry for the large amount of comments.

And it was implying of a massive creature that was a herbivore with a massive body & tail.

And how the bible would know about these creatures 1000's of years before we did.
User avatar #80 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Wait wait, where did you prove that the Bible's actually referring to a dinosaur as opposed to anything else, say, a dragon? You know, that mythical creature of which versions are found in every single culture around the world? Even if you can prove the Bible is actually referring to dinosaurs, you need to convince me why that's significant in any way.
User avatar #81 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Dragons were carnivores in legend.

The bible says that it is a herbivore.
User avatar #83 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
No they weren't. Not all of them. Besides, why is that relevant? Oh, and please attempt to answer all my arguments instead of moving the goalposts.
User avatar #85 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
I am answering your questions, you said: "Wait wait, where did you prove that the Bible's actually referring to a dinosaur as opposed to anything else, say, a dragon?"

And the bible does talk about dragons, separated from the leviathan.
User avatar #125 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Ah, my bad. Iron age, then. Good, you've conceded the argument, admitting your point is moot considering you have no evidence and are working from an assumption.

That, my friend, is intellectual honesty. Glad this argument is over, seeya.
User avatar #110 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
What? Seriously? Man, I thought you were more civil than that, at least. You were trying to prove some bronze age guys two to three thousand years ago knew about dinosaurs. Yeah, possible, as I've pointed out. You then proceed to state that they knew, or thought, that if they were actually referring to dinosaurs, they were herbivores or at least omnivores. You asked me why they could've known that, I come up with the most plausible answers. How exactly is that yelling at you for not bringing facts? Please, I'm anxious to know. Note that I'm tagging along with the assumption (note the definition of assumption in your diary, it's very useful) that the writers of the book of Job are actually talking about dinosaurs. Which is quite an assumption to make in the first place as there's no evidence for it, as I've repeatedly shown.

Over to you.
User avatar #115 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Iron age BTW
They talked about iron.

i am assuming that they are talking about dinosaurs, because of the very similar resemblance of their desciption, you are saying no, because they don't.
User avatar #102 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
By looking at their teeth or simply making it up. Next.
User avatar #105 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
So you think some stuff, then i say some stuff that is written down by them, and you yell at me for not bringing facts?
*sigh*
User avatar #100 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
For some reason I can't reply to your last comment. Again, you refuse to answer any of my enquiries. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't put a grain of evidence behind your claim? Please address my arguments.

Sheesh, I'll even HELP you make your argument. The men who wrote the book of Job a few thousand years ago, found dinosaur fossils and thought they belonged to a gigantic creatures. Maybe they didn't find it, but the story was passed to them and they wrote it down. There, plausible proof. Not very hard, but possible.
User avatar #101 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
How did they know it ate plants?

And by the way, threads can only be so big, and we hit the limit.
User avatar #87 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
What about the part where you have to prove that the Bible's actually referring to dinosaurs as opposed to any number of known or unknown other real, fictional or mythological creature, or even none of the former? What about the part where you have to prove why, if the Bible is referring to dinosaurs, this is even significant?

Yes, the bible talks about dragons. This also happens to be describing the behemoth, not the leviathan, which is a completely different biblical mythological creature. You also only attempted to rebuke my suggestion, not my argument.

Seriously, some people have never bothered to learn basic logical thought. That's not meant as an insult, it's just unfortunate you haven't learned argumentative practice and as such latch on to non-causal correlation.
#106 - abnormalgames (10/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #88 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry, been arguing for the last 30-40 minutes.
I get a little Burnt out after typing the same thing 8 times.

And yes i said the leviathan, not the behemoth, my bad.

But the description very well fits dinosaurs like sauropods.

That is my main point.
#14 - I detect i hint of sarcasm. 10/16/2013 on Evolution Is A Lie 0
#6 - The bible does talk about dinosaurs to be fair. The b…  [+] (48 new replies) 10/16/2013 on Evolution Is A Lie 0
User avatar #49 - bokkos (10/16/2013) [-]
Dragon myths have existed far before the Bible was written, and even moreso with other mythical beasts. It is thought that ancient peoples may have stumbled upon unearthed fossils, noticed the reptilian qualities, and derived myths to explain them.
User avatar #50 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Job Chapter 40
Verse 15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
User avatar #58 - bokkos (10/16/2013) [-]
And? Plenty of creatures, both extant and not, eat grass and vegetation (we call them herbivores dammit). It's hardly outside the range of human imagination to picture a large reptilian eating grass, especially with certain cultural connotations to vegetarianism and the nature of reptiles.
Want to know something that is outside the realm of human imagination? Dueling black hole jets. Want to know what's not in the Bible, Torah, or any other religious text? Dueling black hole jets.
Truth be told I don't give half a rip about religious opinions, but evolutionary theory is sound and backed by an insane amount of knowledge. It's trivial to even argue for it anymore.
User avatar #59 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Read this.

Job Chapter 40 Verses 15-24 (for those who cared)

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.
User avatar #92 - tywin (10/16/2013) [-]
That's an elephant.
User avatar #94 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
He moveth his tail like a cedar

Surely the mountains bring him forth food

Behold, he drinketh up a river


User avatar #108 - tywin (10/16/2013) [-]
Yeah, perfectly elephant like.
User avatar #111 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Yes, elephants have a *Massive* tail

And they drink water with their ass too.

Not even sure if you have seen an elephant before?
User avatar #132 - tywin (10/16/2013) [-]
It doesn't say massive, it says *moveth*
Can't you read?
User avatar #168 - gurubear (10/16/2013) [-]
UHHH!!! BUURN!!

also... what does moveth means???
User avatar #183 - tywin (10/16/2013) [-]
I presume in this case it means 'sways'
Old English is a bitch.
User avatar #186 - gurubear (10/16/2013) [-]
That would make sense
thanks..
User avatar #64 - bokkos (10/16/2013) [-]
A vague description of what may or may not even be a reptile. I'm still very much unimpressed, especially since megafauna are a well documented and extant (to a lesser degree modernly) in scientific knowledge.
Find me a Biblical passage on my black hole example, or alcohol clouds large enough to match trillions upon trillions of pints of beer, or genetic repair mechanisms that prevent spontaneous cancer formation, or any other such magnificent natural phenomena. There won't be, because the individuals who wrote those books were not all seeing, moral-models of the day. Dirty men (and exclusively men) writing dirty books is all it boils down
User avatar #65 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
IT doesnt say that, but it talks about some other stuff, like that and the bible says that the earth is as a sphere, and hangeth upon nothing.
Also life is in the blood.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water.
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor.
and also The Bible states that God created life according to kinds
User avatar #173 - gurubear (10/16/2013) [-]
There is not one passage in the Bible indicating that the earth is a sphere. Isaiah 40:22 refers to it as a circle. The Hebrew word translated as "circle" there is chuwg, which means "circle" not "sphere." There are many passages in the Bible that indicate the earth is flat. Dan 4:10-11 is clear about it, and Dan 2:28 is clear that the visions of Nebuchadnezzar are from God. If God says it, it must be so.

The physical aspect of a circle is a disk, so the biblical earth is disk-shaped. Since the biblical earth is flat, it has an underside and under the earth is the abyss. That is what is being referred to in Job 26:7 when it says that the earth hangeth over nothing.

The Bible also says that the earth is set upon pillars and is immovable, so it can hardly be orbiting the sun.



i copied this... so.. yeah
User avatar #70 - bokkos (10/16/2013) [-]
Again, not claims outside of human imagination. Scholars and "scientists" had known for many centuries that the Earth is indeed spherical, so even if the Bible were to say the Earth is a sphere (If I remember correctly, the closest it gets to is "round") it wouldn't matter because mundane people got there first. Life in the blood is another ridiculous statement, since it's been known for a lot longer than written history that if you jab a bloke with the pointy end of something, unless they stop it they die. Pretty basic warfare.
Hygiene is a staple in many cultures, as it is beneficial to evolutionary fitness. Even chimpanzees know to stay clean, and they hardly have a book written by an "Omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful god".
Of course there are mountains on the sea floor. We see rock formations poking out from the waves all the time (important if you're a sailor at any historical age).
"God created life according to kinds"; well, with evidence for abiogenesis on the rise, and the fact that all organisms are related, the most he could have produced is one kind, which was most probably unicellular due to any number of logical factors.
User avatar #17 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Isn't that Leviathan?
User avatar #44 - lyiat (10/16/2013) [-]
Leviathan is a sea critter. That passage was about Behemoth.
User avatar #18 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry, i think it was, my bad.
User avatar #19 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Yeah, there's a difference between the largest demon controlled by Beelzebub and a plant eating animal closer related to a chicken than a lizard.
User avatar #20 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
No, the verse i was talking about said Behemoth:

Job Chapter 40
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares.
User avatar #21 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Ah, Behemoth. A rather benign, lesser demon.
User avatar #22 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Demons dont eat grass....
User avatar #24 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Neither did Sauropods.
User avatar #26 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
also

Surely the mountains bring him forth food
User avatar #28 - heartlessrobot (10/16/2013) [-]
Oh, BTW, HUMANS wrote the bible, right? The last sauropod died MILLIONS of years before humans could even clunk rocks together.
User avatar #31 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
If you want to read some more, here:

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Job-40-1_40-24/

Or you may be able to find a bible in your home. and when you do, flip to Job chaper 40.
User avatar #29 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
"Last time i check according to evolution, sauropods didn't live 5000 years ago"

Or whatever dinosaur it was.
User avatar #76 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
No dinosaur ever ate grass. Ever. Want to know why? Because grass did not exist 65 million years ago or before that.
User avatar #77 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Surely the mountains bring him forth food.

And did you even read my last comment?

User avatar #78 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Which last comment? Again, as someone has already said, either that Bible phrase is incredbly wrong (as no dinosaur was large enough to stand on a plain and eat from a mountain), or incredibly irrelevant. Why irrelevant? Because it describes nothing more than a cryptic mythical creature. You're obviously not interpreting it literally. Who would? But by doing so your interpretation is just that. AN interpretation. You prove absolutely nothing by referring to the Bible.

Shit I don't even know what your point is.
User avatar #79 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry for the large amount of comments.

And it was implying of a massive creature that was a herbivore with a massive body & tail.

And how the bible would know about these creatures 1000's of years before we did.
User avatar #80 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Wait wait, where did you prove that the Bible's actually referring to a dinosaur as opposed to anything else, say, a dragon? You know, that mythical creature of which versions are found in every single culture around the world? Even if you can prove the Bible is actually referring to dinosaurs, you need to convince me why that's significant in any way.
User avatar #81 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Dragons were carnivores in legend.

The bible says that it is a herbivore.
User avatar #83 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
No they weren't. Not all of them. Besides, why is that relevant? Oh, and please attempt to answer all my arguments instead of moving the goalposts.
User avatar #85 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
I am answering your questions, you said: "Wait wait, where did you prove that the Bible's actually referring to a dinosaur as opposed to anything else, say, a dragon?"

And the bible does talk about dragons, separated from the leviathan.
User avatar #125 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
Ah, my bad. Iron age, then. Good, you've conceded the argument, admitting your point is moot considering you have no evidence and are working from an assumption.

That, my friend, is intellectual honesty. Glad this argument is over, seeya.
User avatar #110 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
What? Seriously? Man, I thought you were more civil than that, at least. You were trying to prove some bronze age guys two to three thousand years ago knew about dinosaurs. Yeah, possible, as I've pointed out. You then proceed to state that they knew, or thought, that if they were actually referring to dinosaurs, they were herbivores or at least omnivores. You asked me why they could've known that, I come up with the most plausible answers. How exactly is that yelling at you for not bringing facts? Please, I'm anxious to know. Note that I'm tagging along with the assumption (note the definition of assumption in your diary, it's very useful) that the writers of the book of Job are actually talking about dinosaurs. Which is quite an assumption to make in the first place as there's no evidence for it, as I've repeatedly shown.

Over to you.
User avatar #115 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Iron age BTW
They talked about iron.

i am assuming that they are talking about dinosaurs, because of the very similar resemblance of their desciption, you are saying no, because they don't.
User avatar #102 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
By looking at their teeth or simply making it up. Next.
User avatar #105 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
So you think some stuff, then i say some stuff that is written down by them, and you yell at me for not bringing facts?
*sigh*
User avatar #100 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
For some reason I can't reply to your last comment. Again, you refuse to answer any of my enquiries. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't put a grain of evidence behind your claim? Please address my arguments.

Sheesh, I'll even HELP you make your argument. The men who wrote the book of Job a few thousand years ago, found dinosaur fossils and thought they belonged to a gigantic creatures. Maybe they didn't find it, but the story was passed to them and they wrote it down. There, plausible proof. Not very hard, but possible.
User avatar #101 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
How did they know it ate plants?

And by the way, threads can only be so big, and we hit the limit.
User avatar #87 - toastedspikes (10/16/2013) [-]
What about the part where you have to prove that the Bible's actually referring to dinosaurs as opposed to any number of known or unknown other real, fictional or mythological creature, or even none of the former? What about the part where you have to prove why, if the Bible is referring to dinosaurs, this is even significant?

Yes, the bible talks about dragons. This also happens to be describing the behemoth, not the leviathan, which is a completely different biblical mythological creature. You also only attempted to rebuke my suggestion, not my argument.

Seriously, some people have never bothered to learn basic logical thought. That's not meant as an insult, it's just unfortunate you haven't learned argumentative practice and as such latch on to non-causal correlation.
#106 - abnormalgames (10/16/2013) [-]
User avatar #88 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
Sorry, been arguing for the last 30-40 minutes.
I get a little Burnt out after typing the same thing 8 times.

And yes i said the leviathan, not the behemoth, my bad.

But the description very well fits dinosaurs like sauropods.

That is my main point.
User avatar #13 - mehturtlesareok (10/16/2013) [-]
That's great evidence you have there, this is really solid stuff. You should tell somone about this so we can disprove this myth of evolution once and for all.
User avatar #14 - lilnuggetbob (10/16/2013) [-]
I detect i hint of sarcasm.
#691359 - - Large glass weakspot - Outer coating of brittle obs… 10/16/2013 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#7 - His prostate. 10/14/2013 on Climb that corporate ladder +4
#7 - HENCE ON I WAS BORED HENCE ON I WAS BORED Th…  [+] (1 new reply) 10/13/2013 on theuglyginger's profile 0
User avatar #8 - theuglyginger (10/14/2013) [-]
How thought provoking. Congratulations, you were bored. You're so bereft of passion and imagination that when you ran out of things to do that didn't require either serious thought or standing up, the thing you thought was best to do was try to compensate for your unusually small dick by seeking out people who you disagree with just to try to start a pissing contest over something trivial and subjective. Why don't you do something productive? Read a book; go outside in the sun; try to get your parents to finally remember your birthday. I'm sorry they didn't hug you enough as a kid, but you don't need to take it out on me.
#688310 - I am familiar with WoT I got it up too rank 7 before … 10/12/2013 on Video Games Board - console... 0
#688305 - You talking about the American, or the Russian one? Becaus…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/12/2013 on Video Games Board - console... 0
User avatar #688308 - adzodeux (10/12/2013) [-]
Russian mang, shit's fun as fuck to play as in WoT, a medium tank that plays like a light but still has a decent gun
User avatar #688310 - lilnuggetbob (10/12/2013) [-]
I am familiar with WoT

I got it up too rank 7 before i got bored and got off.
#688264 - For those who care, Gaijin released the pic of what tank will …  [+] (7 new replies) 10/12/2013 on Video Games Board - console... 0
User avatar #688359 - syrenthra (10/12/2013) [-]
yesssssss
User avatar #688312 - muffinzexe (10/12/2013) [-]
Woo.
User avatar #688271 - adzodeux (10/12/2013) [-]
T28 <3
User avatar #688305 - lilnuggetbob (10/12/2013) [-]
You talking about the American, or the Russian one?
Because there will be no American t-28.
User avatar #688308 - adzodeux (10/12/2013) [-]
Russian mang, shit's fun as fuck to play as in WoT, a medium tank that plays like a light but still has a decent gun
User avatar #688310 - lilnuggetbob (10/12/2013) [-]
I am familiar with WoT

I got it up too rank 7 before i got bored and got off.
User avatar #688269 - amegaara (10/12/2013) [-]
oh my god this looks cool im am really excited for this
#5 - "Really nothing, just bored" I had nothing …  [+] (3 new replies) 10/11/2013 on theuglyginger's profile 0
User avatar #6 - theuglyginger (10/13/2013) [-]
You must live a very sad life if the only thing you have to do with your time is seek out people who like things that you don't like. But hey, convince me; why is the song terrible?
User avatar #7 - lilnuggetbob (10/13/2013) [-]
HENCE ON I WAS BORED

HENCE ON I WAS BORED

That i think it is annoying because personal preference, that and it is repetitive and boring

AND HENCE ON I WAS BORED

Just in case you didn't see the last 3 times i said that.
User avatar #8 - theuglyginger (10/14/2013) [-]
How thought provoking. Congratulations, you were bored. You're so bereft of passion and imagination that when you ran out of things to do that didn't require either serious thought or standing up, the thing you thought was best to do was try to compensate for your unusually small dick by seeking out people who you disagree with just to try to start a pissing contest over something trivial and subjective. Why don't you do something productive? Read a book; go outside in the sun; try to get your parents to finally remember your birthday. I'm sorry they didn't hug you enough as a kid, but you don't need to take it out on me.
#3 - You thumb down my comment that said it was a terrible song. …  [+] (5 new replies) 10/11/2013 on theuglyginger's profile 0
User avatar #4 - theuglyginger (10/11/2013) [-]
Yet you still felt a need to confront a stranger because I have a different opinion? You need some perspective, mate.
User avatar #5 - lilnuggetbob (10/11/2013) [-]
"Really nothing, just bored"

I had nothing but spare time, so i did something.
User avatar #6 - theuglyginger (10/13/2013) [-]
You must live a very sad life if the only thing you have to do with your time is seek out people who like things that you don't like. But hey, convince me; why is the song terrible?
User avatar #7 - lilnuggetbob (10/13/2013) [-]
HENCE ON I WAS BORED

HENCE ON I WAS BORED

That i think it is annoying because personal preference, that and it is repetitive and boring

AND HENCE ON I WAS BORED

Just in case you didn't see the last 3 times i said that.
User avatar #8 - theuglyginger (10/14/2013) [-]
How thought provoking. Congratulations, you were bored. You're so bereft of passion and imagination that when you ran out of things to do that didn't require either serious thought or standing up, the thing you thought was best to do was try to compensate for your unusually small dick by seeking out people who you disagree with just to try to start a pissing contest over something trivial and subjective. Why don't you do something productive? Read a book; go outside in the sun; try to get your parents to finally remember your birthday. I'm sorry they didn't hug you enough as a kid, but you don't need to take it out on me.
#332 - Phanact, i dont like you, but you are right. "Bu… 10/11/2013 on Snakefires Ban -3
#1 - "What does the fox say" is a terrible song, you are …  [+] (7 new replies) 10/11/2013 on theuglyginger's profile 0
User avatar #2 - theuglyginger (10/11/2013) [-]
You're a terrible song. What does this have to do with me?
User avatar #3 - lilnuggetbob (10/11/2013) [-]
You thumb down my comment that said it was a terrible song.

Really nothing, just bored.
User avatar #4 - theuglyginger (10/11/2013) [-]
Yet you still felt a need to confront a stranger because I have a different opinion? You need some perspective, mate.
User avatar #5 - lilnuggetbob (10/11/2013) [-]
"Really nothing, just bored"

I had nothing but spare time, so i did something.
User avatar #6 - theuglyginger (10/13/2013) [-]
You must live a very sad life if the only thing you have to do with your time is seek out people who like things that you don't like. But hey, convince me; why is the song terrible?
User avatar #7 - lilnuggetbob (10/13/2013) [-]
HENCE ON I WAS BORED

HENCE ON I WAS BORED

That i think it is annoying because personal preference, that and it is repetitive and boring

AND HENCE ON I WAS BORED

Just in case you didn't see the last 3 times i said that.
User avatar #8 - theuglyginger (10/14/2013) [-]
How thought provoking. Congratulations, you were bored. You're so bereft of passion and imagination that when you ran out of things to do that didn't require either serious thought or standing up, the thing you thought was best to do was try to compensate for your unusually small dick by seeking out people who you disagree with just to try to start a pissing contest over something trivial and subjective. Why don't you do something productive? Read a book; go outside in the sun; try to get your parents to finally remember your birthday. I'm sorry they didn't hug you enough as a kid, but you don't need to take it out on me.
#1 - That song is really ****** and annoying.  [+] (3 new replies) 10/10/2013 on I swear on me mum +8
User avatar #3 - flipgraham (10/11/2013) [-]
I feel blessed that I still haven't heard it and have no clue how shitty and annoying it is
User avatar #14 - harbingerwolf (10/11/2013) [-]
Its just a made up song for a sketch some comedians did i think. But the internet is taking it too seriously as if it was meant as a serious song.
#2 - anonymous (10/10/2013) [-]
>implying you think it's supposed to be a serious song
#189 - Sorry if i seem to say that, i have a bad way with words, it m…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/10/2013 on Lawyered +1
User avatar #290 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
That's what people always say, but it's very rare that anyone can argue for it further than, "It's different so nothing that works in Europe will work in the U.S."

I've been lurking and posting on threads across various forums about this topic over the last year and I don't know, it just makes me lose faith in your side of the argument completely when I've yet to see anyone even be willing to accept that some European models possibly potentially would work.

Of course you also hear people say that the economy of the U.S. isn't collective and that it's very different from state to state and that it's far more delegated than it appears, but that conflicts with the argument that the U.S. is too large for any socialist model to work, and so on. It really just seems like a big melting pot, and I've always thought a massive reform of the U.S. altogether will probably be necessary very soon in the future.
User avatar #407 - xxiixx (10/12/2013) [-]
Imagine if every single country in Europe was forced to adopt one blanketing health insurance policy where the coverage isn't free, rather the average citizen could expect to pay $100-200 more per month than they are already paying. That is essentially what ObamaCare is.
#185 - Any other insurance company.  [+] (3 new replies) 10/10/2013 on Lawyered +1
User avatar #279 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
That's not really a compelling argument.
User avatar #293 - Stamyham (10/10/2013) [-]
It is if you bother to look up the rates for Obamacare compared to other insurance companies.
User avatar #301 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
No, it's a ridiculous argument because it's suggesting that every other insurance company out there is better, which simply isn't true. If you want to convince someone, you'll have to be more specific rather than using some kind of "You're wrong because you're wrong"-logic. And bother to explain exactly what you think are the pros and cons of the insurance companies you're talking about, including Obamacare, rather than solely looking at the rates.
#183 - You are a European aren't you? The American economy is the…  [+] (9 new replies) 10/10/2013 on Lawyered +1
#186 - anonymous (10/10/2013) [-]
your arguments seem to boil down to

"fuck everyone who ever messes up in their life, taxes are punishing meeee"

Grow the fuck up.
User avatar #189 - lilnuggetbob (10/10/2013) [-]
Sorry if i seem to say that, i have a bad way with words, it might seem that i am trying to say that fuck everyone that isn't me, it is wrong to punish everyone if a few people fuck up, and that and the American economy is 10x bigger than almost every European contry, and works alot more differently that them.
User avatar #290 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
That's what people always say, but it's very rare that anyone can argue for it further than, "It's different so nothing that works in Europe will work in the U.S."

I've been lurking and posting on threads across various forums about this topic over the last year and I don't know, it just makes me lose faith in your side of the argument completely when I've yet to see anyone even be willing to accept that some European models possibly potentially would work.

Of course you also hear people say that the economy of the U.S. isn't collective and that it's very different from state to state and that it's far more delegated than it appears, but that conflicts with the argument that the U.S. is too large for any socialist model to work, and so on. It really just seems like a big melting pot, and I've always thought a massive reform of the U.S. altogether will probably be necessary very soon in the future.
User avatar #407 - xxiixx (10/12/2013) [-]
Imagine if every single country in Europe was forced to adopt one blanketing health insurance policy where the coverage isn't free, rather the average citizen could expect to pay $100-200 more per month than they are already paying. That is essentially what ObamaCare is.
User avatar #184 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
If you are so sure, will you direct me to some genuinely better alternatives?
User avatar #185 - lilnuggetbob (10/10/2013) [-]
Any other insurance company.
User avatar #279 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
That's not really a compelling argument.
User avatar #293 - Stamyham (10/10/2013) [-]
It is if you bother to look up the rates for Obamacare compared to other insurance companies.
User avatar #301 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
No, it's a ridiculous argument because it's suggesting that every other insurance company out there is better, which simply isn't true. If you want to convince someone, you'll have to be more specific rather than using some kind of "You're wrong because you're wrong"-logic. And bother to explain exactly what you think are the pros and cons of the insurance companies you're talking about, including Obamacare, rather than solely looking at the rates.
#175 - TL ; DR Obamacare hurts the masses to appeal to the minority. 10/10/2013 on Lawyered 0
#172 - Can't blame you for thinking that you can help everyone at the…  [+] (11 new replies) 10/10/2013 on Lawyered +1
User avatar #179 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
Except the masses aren't hurt by it, they are simply contributing to the establishment of a safety net that they themselves may one day desperately need. Obamacare isn't going to put millions of people on the street, and even if it did, it would bounce them right back up. That's the whole point of it.
User avatar #183 - lilnuggetbob (10/10/2013) [-]
You are a European aren't you?
The American economy is the size of all of Europe's, and is MUCH different,
While million will not be put in the streets, it will hurt them, and btw Obamacare is one of the least affordable "Insurance" plan around, almost every other one you get, gives you MORE benefits, while it can be 100-300 dollars cheaper, and makes the masses pay this, so that the minorty can fuck around with no issue, and it will not take people out of the street, if only to keep them there longer.

TL ; DR Obamacare is worse than almost every alternative.
#186 - anonymous (10/10/2013) [-]
your arguments seem to boil down to

"fuck everyone who ever messes up in their life, taxes are punishing meeee"

Grow the fuck up.
User avatar #189 - lilnuggetbob (10/10/2013) [-]
Sorry if i seem to say that, i have a bad way with words, it might seem that i am trying to say that fuck everyone that isn't me, it is wrong to punish everyone if a few people fuck up, and that and the American economy is 10x bigger than almost every European contry, and works alot more differently that them.
User avatar #290 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
That's what people always say, but it's very rare that anyone can argue for it further than, "It's different so nothing that works in Europe will work in the U.S."

I've been lurking and posting on threads across various forums about this topic over the last year and I don't know, it just makes me lose faith in your side of the argument completely when I've yet to see anyone even be willing to accept that some European models possibly potentially would work.

Of course you also hear people say that the economy of the U.S. isn't collective and that it's very different from state to state and that it's far more delegated than it appears, but that conflicts with the argument that the U.S. is too large for any socialist model to work, and so on. It really just seems like a big melting pot, and I've always thought a massive reform of the U.S. altogether will probably be necessary very soon in the future.
User avatar #407 - xxiixx (10/12/2013) [-]
Imagine if every single country in Europe was forced to adopt one blanketing health insurance policy where the coverage isn't free, rather the average citizen could expect to pay $100-200 more per month than they are already paying. That is essentially what ObamaCare is.
User avatar #184 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
If you are so sure, will you direct me to some genuinely better alternatives?
User avatar #185 - lilnuggetbob (10/10/2013) [-]
Any other insurance company.
User avatar #279 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
That's not really a compelling argument.
User avatar #293 - Stamyham (10/10/2013) [-]
It is if you bother to look up the rates for Obamacare compared to other insurance companies.
User avatar #301 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
No, it's a ridiculous argument because it's suggesting that every other insurance company out there is better, which simply isn't true. If you want to convince someone, you'll have to be more specific rather than using some kind of "You're wrong because you're wrong"-logic. And bother to explain exactly what you think are the pros and cons of the insurance companies you're talking about, including Obamacare, rather than solely looking at the rates.
#158 - Anon, while that is true, you have no idea about what it has d…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/10/2013 on Lawyered 0
#168 - anonymous (10/10/2013) [-]
Can we have that again in english please?
User avatar #175 - lilnuggetbob (10/10/2013) [-]
TL ; DR
Obamacare hurts the masses to appeal to the minority.
#156 - Yes you are right, but do you think that people who have been …  [+] (13 new replies) 10/10/2013 on Lawyered +1
User avatar #169 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
It's really not that simple. Most people who are stuck in drug addiction got there due to poverty, desperation, mental illness, gang activity and so forth. They're not just your average joe who one day decided to start injecting heroin and could quit but he's too lazy. No, it's a lot darker than that and not half as easy to handle as you make it out to be. Just trust me when I say that drug addicts generally don't want to be addicted and would do anything to get out of it, but in a country like the U.S. that's nearly impossible unless you have money which you can't possible get if you are in that position, so you are essentially doomed to die because the egocentrics in charge think you deserve it because of a few mistakes and misfortunes you suffered years ago.

Not to mention that they aren't even a majority among those that public healthcare would help. They're a fraction of the thousands of lives that could be saved but aren't because they've no money to back it up. That's the reality of what the U.S. is like, if you hadn't noticed. It's not some dreamland where everyone has the opportunity to become great; it's a place where the lucky few live on the misfortune of others who they then have no desire to help even if they've worked hard, paid their taxes on time, been polite to everyone their whole lives, done charity, done everything you're supposed to do but still can't afford it.

I guess I can't blame you for how you're thinking, though, a lot of Americans seem to be raised with the mindset, "Think about yourself and fuck everyone else."
User avatar #172 - lilnuggetbob (10/10/2013) [-]
Can't blame you for thinking that you can help everyone at the punishment of the majority.

And im not just thinking about myself, im thinking about the majority, of middle class, Joes that get hurt because of Obamacare, And it am demonizing it more that i should, but it the basic point is that, the masses should not be hurt to appeal for the minorities.
User avatar #179 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
Except the masses aren't hurt by it, they are simply contributing to the establishment of a safety net that they themselves may one day desperately need. Obamacare isn't going to put millions of people on the street, and even if it did, it would bounce them right back up. That's the whole point of it.
User avatar #183 - lilnuggetbob (10/10/2013) [-]
You are a European aren't you?
The American economy is the size of all of Europe's, and is MUCH different,
While million will not be put in the streets, it will hurt them, and btw Obamacare is one of the least affordable "Insurance" plan around, almost every other one you get, gives you MORE benefits, while it can be 100-300 dollars cheaper, and makes the masses pay this, so that the minorty can fuck around with no issue, and it will not take people out of the street, if only to keep them there longer.

TL ; DR Obamacare is worse than almost every alternative.
#186 - anonymous (10/10/2013) [-]
your arguments seem to boil down to

"fuck everyone who ever messes up in their life, taxes are punishing meeee"

Grow the fuck up.
User avatar #189 - lilnuggetbob (10/10/2013) [-]
Sorry if i seem to say that, i have a bad way with words, it might seem that i am trying to say that fuck everyone that isn't me, it is wrong to punish everyone if a few people fuck up, and that and the American economy is 10x bigger than almost every European contry, and works alot more differently that them.
User avatar #290 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
That's what people always say, but it's very rare that anyone can argue for it further than, "It's different so nothing that works in Europe will work in the U.S."

I've been lurking and posting on threads across various forums about this topic over the last year and I don't know, it just makes me lose faith in your side of the argument completely when I've yet to see anyone even be willing to accept that some European models possibly potentially would work.

Of course you also hear people say that the economy of the U.S. isn't collective and that it's very different from state to state and that it's far more delegated than it appears, but that conflicts with the argument that the U.S. is too large for any socialist model to work, and so on. It really just seems like a big melting pot, and I've always thought a massive reform of the U.S. altogether will probably be necessary very soon in the future.
User avatar #407 - xxiixx (10/12/2013) [-]
Imagine if every single country in Europe was forced to adopt one blanketing health insurance policy where the coverage isn't free, rather the average citizen could expect to pay $100-200 more per month than they are already paying. That is essentially what ObamaCare is.
User avatar #184 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
If you are so sure, will you direct me to some genuinely better alternatives?
User avatar #185 - lilnuggetbob (10/10/2013) [-]
Any other insurance company.
User avatar #279 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
That's not really a compelling argument.
User avatar #293 - Stamyham (10/10/2013) [-]
It is if you bother to look up the rates for Obamacare compared to other insurance companies.
User avatar #301 - hudis (10/10/2013) [-]
No, it's a ridiculous argument because it's suggesting that every other insurance company out there is better, which simply isn't true. If you want to convince someone, you'll have to be more specific rather than using some kind of "You're wrong because you're wrong"-logic. And bother to explain exactly what you think are the pros and cons of the insurance companies you're talking about, including Obamacare, rather than solely looking at the rates.
#685990 - 8.5/10 Like Skyrim with planes BTW its War… 10/09/2013 on Video Games Board - console... 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1570 / Total items point value: 2120

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#24 - atheisttsiehta (06/27/2014) [-]
You pass
User avatar #22 - RageRambo (12/10/2013) [-]
I read the comment you posted on the TWD content about Daryl blowing up the tank with the grenade. Those were some of the best comments I've ever seen you post.
#20 - drewbridge (07/15/2013) [-]
Wear a seatbelt, 						******
Wear a seatbelt, ******
#17 - dtowngangsta (02/21/2013) [-]
**dtowngangsta rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at finn-arl-ay **
**dtowngangsta rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at finn-arl-ay **
#15 - dtowngangsta (02/21/2013) [-]
**dtowngangsta rolled a random image posted in comment #559 at Poinkie Poi Party thread 3 **
User avatar #3 to #2 - lilnuggetbob (07/30/2012) [-]
and get gray test
 Friends (0)