Andrew Yang's Humanity Forward Movement

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on anything they want to have an opinion on, Mr. Thought Police.
That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to a VOTE on every issue, but we all have opinions, including Mr. Thought Police.

I like Yang, he's a smart fellow and I would be glad to have him as POTUS.

Why? 

Having freedom of thought is an intrinsic part of being human.  Most opinions probably aren't worth a damn, but that doesn't mean we should control what people think.  Not that we could, anyways.
I'm shocked a University professor would be so eager to censor the very thoughts of those with whom he disagrees.

Who is censoring? I'm in no position to censor anyone but myself. And I do.

This is why I earlier said that I find cincy (and perhaps you) more arrogant than me: you grant yourself the right to have an opinion on literally everything. I would never claim that for myself. 

you literally have said several times over many threads "you aren't entitled to an opinion on this". not sure how it can be a more clear example of censoring. 

gambs is a self-professed arrogant. and i think i can speak for many that we still love him to bits. 

Shit, man, I didn't realize when I said that that I deleted your comments. I'll wield my power more responsibly from here on out. 

Alternate response: you don't know what the word "censor" means. 

It might just be the latter.

i know perfectly well what it means, but thanks for yet another unoriginal thought. 

Zing, you really got me there.

Here's another unoriginal thought, you don't know what true censorship means, it's either by ignorance or stubbornness. I really don't care but it is amusing.

Nobody was censored.

On topic, I liked Yang. But am glad to see him throw in the towel now, it was the right time. A candidate with ideas ahead of his time.

I'm not interested in "zings". pointing out an annoying pattern of yours. I'm not interested in your constant "I'm going to agree with THIS guy and pile on the guy he disagrees with instead of adding to the discussion in any meaningful way". 

I don't think you know what irony means either.

Two things I agreed with Yang on, circumcision and UBI.

I do just fine without your "thoughts", chester. 

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on anything they want to have an opinion on, Mr. Thought Police.
That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to a VOTE on every issue, but we all have opinions, including Mr. Thought Police.

I like Yang, he's a smart fellow and I would be glad to have him as POTUS.

Why? 

Having freedom of thought is an intrinsic part of being human.  Most opinions probably aren't worth a damn, but that doesn't mean we should control what people think.  Not that we could, anyways.
I'm shocked a University professor would be so eager to censor the very thoughts of those with whom he disagrees.

Who is censoring? I'm in no position to censor anyone but myself. And I do.

This is why I earlier said that I find cincy (and perhaps you) more arrogant than me: you grant yourself the right to have an opinion on literally everything. I would never claim that for myself. 

you literally have said several times over many threads "you aren't entitled to an opinion on this". not sure how it can be a more clear example of censoring. 

gambs is a self-professed arrogant. and i think i can speak for many that we still love him to bits. 

Shit, man, I didn't realize when I said that that I deleted your comments. I'll wield my power more responsibly from here on out. 

Alternate response: you don't know what the word "censor" means. 

It might just be the latter.

i know perfectly well what it means, but thanks for yet another unoriginal thought. 

Zing, you really got me there.

Here's another unoriginal thought, you don't know what true censorship means, it's either by ignorance or stubbornness. I really don't care but it is amusing.

Nobody was censored.

On topic, I liked Yang. But am glad to see him throw in the towel now, it was the right time. A candidate with ideas ahead of his time.

I'm not interested in "zings". pointing out an annoying pattern of yours. I'm not interested in your constant "I'm going to agree with THIS guy and pile on the guy he disagrees with instead of adding to the discussion in any meaningful way". 

I agree with this guy so I'm piling on without adding to the discussion in anyway...ironic isn't it?  Did I use ironic properly?  My generation was hosed by Alanis and we are never really sure.

haha, that alanis thing has always been so funny to me. people dissecting a lyric to a song and making a big deal out of it. 

Tell me about the Alanis thing- I don't know that one.

the song Ironic. every scenario in that song isn't actually ironic, they are more just shitty things that happened to be people (a man afraid to fly, then his plane goes down). she got skewered for butchering the definition of the word, (a few) people even claiming it was going to have a lasting "dumbing down" effect on people listening to it. 

Is Alanis ironic actually ironic?

Alanis Morissette's song “Ironic” is equally useful. If it rains on your wedding day, that's a coincidence, not an irony. If you win the lottery and drop dead before claiming the money, it's good luck followed by bad luck. If you meet the man of your dreams and then meet his beautiful wife, it's a bummer.Jun 30, 2008

Thank you!  Interesting. 

So is getting on AMT to catch up on current events an example of irony?

no, it's an example of psychological sado-masechism. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on anything they want to have an opinion on, Mr. Thought Police.
That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to a VOTE on every issue, but we all have opinions, including Mr. Thought Police.

I like Yang, he's a smart fellow and I would be glad to have him as POTUS.

Why? 

Having freedom of thought is an intrinsic part of being human.  Most opinions probably aren't worth a damn, but that doesn't mean we should control what people think.  Not that we could, anyways.
I'm shocked a University professor would be so eager to censor the very thoughts of those with whom he disagrees.

Who is censoring? I'm in no position to censor anyone but myself. And I do.

This is why I earlier said that I find cincy (and perhaps you) more arrogant than me: you grant yourself the right to have an opinion on literally everything. I would never claim that for myself. 

you literally have said several times over many threads "you aren't entitled to an opinion on this". not sure how it can be a more clear example of censoring. 

gambs is a self-professed arrogant. and i think i can speak for many that we still love him to bits. 

Shit, man, I didn't realize when I said that that I deleted your comments. I'll wield my power more responsibly from here on out. 

Alternate response: you don't know what the word "censor" means. 

It might just be the latter.

i know perfectly well what it means, but thanks for yet another unoriginal thought. 

Zing, you really got me there.

Here's another unoriginal thought, you don't know what true censorship means, it's either by ignorance or stubbornness. I really don't care but it is amusing.

Nobody was censored.

On topic, I liked Yang. But am glad to see him throw in the towel now, it was the right time. A candidate with ideas ahead of his time.

I'm not interested in "zings". pointing out an annoying pattern of yours. I'm not interested in your constant "I'm going to agree with THIS guy and pile on the guy he disagrees with instead of adding to the discussion in any meaningful way". 

I don't think you know what irony means either.

Two things I agreed with Yang on, circumcision and UBI.

I do just fine without your "thoughts", chester. 

Who is Chester?

A relative of Yang?

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on anything they want to have an opinion on, Mr. Thought Police.
That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to a VOTE on every issue, but we all have opinions, including Mr. Thought Police.

I like Yang, he's a smart fellow and I would be glad to have him as POTUS.

Why? 

Having freedom of thought is an intrinsic part of being human.  Most opinions probably aren't worth a damn, but that doesn't mean we should control what people think.  Not that we could, anyways.
I'm shocked a University professor would be so eager to censor the very thoughts of those with whom he disagrees.

Who is censoring? I'm in no position to censor anyone but myself. And I do.

This is why I earlier said that I find cincy (and perhaps you) more arrogant than me: you grant yourself the right to have an opinion on literally everything. I would never claim that for myself. 

you literally have said several times over many threads "you aren't entitled to an opinion on this". not sure how it can be a more clear example of censoring. 

gambs is a self-professed arrogant. and i think i can speak for many that we still love him to bits. 

Shit, man, I didn't realize when I said that that I deleted your comments. I'll wield my power more responsibly from here on out. 

Alternate response: you don't know what the word "censor" means. 

It might just be the latter.

i know perfectly well what it means, but thanks for yet another unoriginal thought. 

Zing, you really got me there.

Here's another unoriginal thought, you don't know what true censorship means, it's either by ignorance or stubbornness. I really don't care but it is amusing.

Nobody was censored.

On topic, I liked Yang. But am glad to see him throw in the towel now, it was the right time. A candidate with ideas ahead of his time.

I'm not interested in "zings". pointing out an annoying pattern of yours. I'm not interested in your constant "I'm going to agree with THIS guy and pile on the guy he disagrees with instead of adding to the discussion in any meaningful way". 

I don't think you know what irony means either.

Two things I agreed with Yang on, circumcision and UBI.

More zings.  Why?

Weren't you just complaining about keeping the topic on Yang?

Not a lot of talk about Yang here.

I also was impressed with Yang's wife and her bravery in talking about her sexual assault. She would have made a very good first lady.

Yes, but I just get tired of the dig, dignin.

I agree, Yang's wife seems like a very bright lady.  I've enjoyed listening to a few of her interviews.  I hope we'll be seeing more of the Yangs in the future!

so he can make a shitty comment to someone, but when called on it, turns it around about you complaining about not being on topic. 

OH, THE IRONY, ALANIS

Oh please, stop piling on, I don't think I can take it anymore! I may need to throw a temper tantrum, call people names and proclaim I will never go on the AMT again, only to keep showing up.

Nah, I'm only joking, I would never do that.

Another thing I liked about Yang, he had a good sense of humour.

brianlux said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on anything they want to have an opinion on, Mr. Thought Police.
That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to a VOTE on every issue, but we all have opinions, including Mr. Thought Police.

I like Yang, he's a smart fellow and I would be glad to have him as POTUS.

Why? 

Having freedom of thought is an intrinsic part of being human.  Most opinions probably aren't worth a damn, but that doesn't mean we should control what people think.  Not that we could, anyways.
I'm shocked a University professor would be so eager to censor the very thoughts of those with whom he disagrees.

Who is censoring? I'm in no position to censor anyone but myself. And I do.

This is why I earlier said that I find cincy (and perhaps you) more arrogant than me: you grant yourself the right to have an opinion on literally everything. I would never claim that for myself. 

you literally have said several times over many threads "you aren't entitled to an opinion on this". not sure how it can be a more clear example of censoring. 

gambs is a self-professed arrogant. and i think i can speak for many that we still love him to bits. 

Shit, man, I didn't realize when I said that that I deleted your comments. I'll wield my power more responsibly from here on out. 

Alternate response: you don't know what the word "censor" means. 

It might just be the latter.

i know perfectly well what it means, but thanks for yet another unoriginal thought. 

Zing, you really got me there.

Here's another unoriginal thought, you don't know what true censorship means, it's either by ignorance or stubbornness. I really don't care but it is amusing.

Nobody was censored.

On topic, I liked Yang. But am glad to see him throw in the towel now, it was the right time. A candidate with ideas ahead of his time.

I'm not interested in "zings". pointing out an annoying pattern of yours. I'm not interested in your constant "I'm going to agree with THIS guy and pile on the guy he disagrees with instead of adding to the discussion in any meaningful way". 

I don't think you know what irony means either.

Two things I agreed with Yang on, circumcision and UBI.

More zings.  Why?

Weren't you just complaining about keeping the topic on Yang?

Not a lot of talk about Yang here.

I also was impressed with Yang's wife and her bravery in talking about her sexual assault. She would have made a very good first lady.

Yes, but I just get tired of the dig, dignin.

I agree, Yang's wife seems like a very bright lady.  I've enjoyed listening to a few of her interviews.  I hope we'll be seeing more of the Yangs in the future!

so he can make a shitty comment to someone, but when called on it, turns it around about you complaining about not being on topic. 

OH, THE IRONY, ALANIS

Oh please, stop piling on, I don't think I can take it anymore! I may need to throw a temper tantrum, call people names and proclaim I will never go on the AMT again, only to keep showing up.

Nah, I'm only joking, I would never do that.

Another thing I liked about Yang, he had a good sense of humour.

Now you're only sort-of staying on topic as an excuse for slipping in another dig.  Not cool.

Maybe stop being so selective in what you want to call out, or just mind your own business. That's not cool.

Yang is gone. Get on the Bernie train. We all know Yang himself is firmly on it. "choo choo*

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I do just fine without your "thoughts", chester. 

Who is Chester?

A relative of Yang?

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on anything they want to have an opinion on, Mr. Thought Police.
That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to a VOTE on every issue, but we all have opinions, including Mr. Thought Police.

I like Yang, he's a smart fellow and I would be glad to have him as POTUS.

Why? 

Having freedom of thought is an intrinsic part of being human.  Most opinions probably aren't worth a damn, but that doesn't mean we should control what people think.  Not that we could, anyways.
I'm shocked a University professor would be so eager to censor the very thoughts of those with whom he disagrees.

Who is censoring? I'm in no position to censor anyone but myself. And I do.

This is why I earlier said that I find cincy (and perhaps you) more arrogant than me: you grant yourself the right to have an opinion on literally everything. I would never claim that for myself. 

you literally have said several times over many threads "you aren't entitled to an opinion on this". not sure how it can be a more clear example of censoring. 

gambs is a self-professed arrogant. and i think i can speak for many that we still love him to bits. 

Shit, man, I didn't realize when I said that that I deleted your comments. I'll wield my power more responsibly from here on out. 

Alternate response: you don't know what the word "censor" means. 

It might just be the latter.

i know perfectly well what it means, but thanks for yet another unoriginal thought. 

Zing, you really got me there.

Here's another unoriginal thought, you don't know what true censorship means, it's either by ignorance or stubbornness. I really don't care but it is amusing.

Nobody was censored.

On topic, I liked Yang. But am glad to see him throw in the towel now, it was the right time. A candidate with ideas ahead of his time.

I'm not interested in "zings". pointing out an annoying pattern of yours. I'm not interested in your constant "I'm going to agree with THIS guy and pile on the guy he disagrees with instead of adding to the discussion in any meaningful way". 

I don't think you know what irony means either.

Two things I agreed with Yang on, circumcision and UBI.

More zings.  Why?

Weren't you just complaining about keeping the topic on Yang?

Not a lot of talk about Yang here.

I also was impressed with Yang's wife and her bravery in talking about her sexual assault. She would have made a very good first lady.

Yes, but I just get tired of the dig, dignin.

I agree, Yang's wife seems like a very bright lady.  I've enjoyed listening to a few of her interviews.  I hope we'll be seeing more of the Yangs in the future!

so he can make a shitty comment to someone, but when called on it, turns it around about you complaining about not being on topic. 

OH, THE IRONY, ALANIS

Oh please, stop piling on, I don't think I can take it anymore! I may need to throw a temper tantrum, call people names and proclaim I will never go on the AMT again, only to keep showing up.

Nah, I'm only joking, I would never do that.

Another thing I liked about Yang, he had a good sense of humour.

stop trying to use this like it bothers me. it's pathetic. 

if you consider calling out someone for their constant shitty behaviour towards other members throwing a temper tantrum, then get me a fucking box of diapers a soother dipped in whiskey. 

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on anything they want to have an opinion on, Mr. Thought Police.
That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to a VOTE on every issue, but we all have opinions, including Mr. Thought Police.

I like Yang, he's a smart fellow and I would be glad to have him as POTUS.

Why? 

Having freedom of thought is an intrinsic part of being human.  Most opinions probably aren't worth a damn, but that doesn't mean we should control what people think.  Not that we could, anyways.
I'm shocked a University professor would be so eager to censor the very thoughts of those with whom he disagrees.

Who is censoring? I'm in no position to censor anyone but myself. And I do.

This is why I earlier said that I find cincy (and perhaps you) more arrogant than me: you grant yourself the right to have an opinion on literally everything. I would never claim that for myself. 

you literally have said several times over many threads "you aren't entitled to an opinion on this". not sure how it can be a more clear example of censoring. 

gambs is a self-professed arrogant. and i think i can speak for many that we still love him to bits. 

Shit, man, I didn't realize when I said that that I deleted your comments. I'll wield my power more responsibly from here on out. 

Alternate response: you don't know what the word "censor" means. 

It might just be the latter.

i know perfectly well what it means, but thanks for yet another unoriginal thought. 

Zing, you really got me there.

Here's another unoriginal thought, you don't know what true censorship means, it's either by ignorance or stubbornness. I really don't care but it is amusing.

Nobody was censored.

On topic, I liked Yang. But am glad to see him throw in the towel now, it was the right time. A candidate with ideas ahead of his time.

I'm not interested in "zings". pointing out an annoying pattern of yours. I'm not interested in your constant "I'm going to agree with THIS guy and pile on the guy he disagrees with instead of adding to the discussion in any meaningful way". 

I don't think you know what irony means either.

Two things I agreed with Yang on, circumcision and UBI.

More zings.  Why?

Weren't you just complaining about keeping the topic on Yang?

Not a lot of talk about Yang here.

I also was impressed with Yang's wife and her bravery in talking about her sexual assault. She would have made a very good first lady.

Yes, but I just get tired of the dig, dignin.

I agree, Yang's wife seems like a very bright lady.  I've enjoyed listening to a few of her interviews.  I hope we'll be seeing more of the Yangs in the future!

so he can make a shitty comment to someone, but when called on it, turns it around about you complaining about not being on topic. 

OH, THE IRONY, ALANIS

Oh please, stop piling on, I don't think I can take it anymore! I may need to throw a temper tantrum, call people names and proclaim I will never go on the AMT again, only to keep showing up.

Nah, I'm only joking, I would never do that.

Another thing I liked about Yang, he had a good sense of humour.

Now you're only sort-of staying on topic as an excuse for slipping in another dig.  Not cool.

Maybe stop being so selective in what you want to call out, or just mind your own business. That's not cool.

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

brianlux said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

dignin said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on anything they want to have an opinion on, Mr. Thought Police.
That doesn't mean everyone is entitled to a VOTE on every issue, but we all have opinions, including Mr. Thought Police.

I like Yang, he's a smart fellow and I would be glad to have him as POTUS.

Why? 

Having freedom of thought is an intrinsic part of being human.  Most opinions probably aren't worth a damn, but that doesn't mean we should control what people think.  Not that we could, anyways.
I'm shocked a University professor would be so eager to censor the very thoughts of those with whom he disagrees.

Who is censoring? I'm in no position to censor anyone but myself. And I do.

This is why I earlier said that I find cincy (and perhaps you) more arrogant than me: you grant yourself the right to have an opinion on literally everything. I would never claim that for myself. 

you literally have said several times over many threads "you aren't entitled to an opinion on this". not sure how it can be a more clear example of censoring. 

gambs is a self-professed arrogant. and i think i can speak for many that we still love him to bits. 

Shit, man, I didn't realize when I said that that I deleted your comments. I'll wield my power more responsibly from here on out. 

Alternate response: you don't know what the word "censor" means. 

It might just be the latter.

i know perfectly well what it means, but thanks for yet another unoriginal thought. 

Zing, you really got me there.

Here's another unoriginal thought, you don't know what true censorship means, it's either by ignorance or stubbornness. I really don't care but it is amusing.

Nobody was censored.

On topic, I liked Yang. But am glad to see him throw in the towel now, it was the right time. A candidate with ideas ahead of his time.

I'm not interested in "zings". pointing out an annoying pattern of yours. I'm not interested in your constant "I'm going to agree with THIS guy and pile on the guy he disagrees with instead of adding to the discussion in any meaningful way". 

I don't think you know what irony means either.

Two things I agreed with Yang on, circumcision and UBI.

More zings.  Why?

Weren't you just complaining about keeping the topic on Yang?

Not a lot of talk about Yang here.

I also was impressed with Yang's wife and her bravery in talking about her sexual assault. She would have made a very good first lady.

Yes, but I just get tired of the dig, dignin.

I agree, Yang's wife seems like a very bright lady.  I've enjoyed listening to a few of her interviews.  I hope we'll be seeing more of the Yangs in the future!

so he can make a shitty comment to someone, but when called on it, turns it around about you complaining about not being on topic. 

OH, THE IRONY, ALANIS

Oh please, stop piling on, I don't think I can take it anymore! I may need to throw a temper tantrum, call people names and proclaim I will never go on the AMT again, only to keep showing up.

Nah, I'm only joking, I would never do that.

Another thing I liked about Yang, he had a good sense of humour.

it is fucking hilarious you posted these right after each other. 

self-aware much?

jeffbr said:

dignin said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I do just fine without your "thoughts", chester. 

Who is Chester?

A relative of Yang?

Ahhh, that Chester. That guy is a cool cat, I'm flattered.