spongebob toonpants

streaky bacon is a big NoNo as far as I am concerned

Its basically down to the quality of the tache. Hitlers was obv the work of a weasel, Uncle Joe had sprouted something to be proud of

One of the reasons punk started was to get away from smug self indulgent stadium tedium like this. I'm fuck all like a midde-class schoolboy btw. Nee offence like, I should probably let the hatred die

One of the reasons punk started was to get away from smug self indulgent stadium tedium like this.

Star Wars - I enjoyed the original at the cinema when I was a kid, i always thought the rest were a bore fest. Tried to watch Star Wars again recently, load of toss Pink Floyd- overhyped shat for middle class schooolboys

http://www.trafficengland.com/map/browse.c...s=on&vms=on

Aye, you've sucked people into a completely useless and unimportant debate. Can you direct me to the useful, important debates on Toontastic please? I like it when someone plays devils advocate. Fop makes a slightly better fist of it than Thompers used to too. [/damning with faint praise] I have to agree, it was top quality trolling. The sheer quantity of posts, some short, some long without ever quite making a worthwile point but inspiring page after page of answers. Top notch wummeration You're just rather bitter that your "best" argument against my points was to get mad and cast aspersion at "me", it'll be ok though, I'm sure you'll get over it in the end. You misjudge me, the post above was meant as a compliment. I am also impressed by the little you drop in. You give me too much credit -I couldnt argue against your points -I have no idea what they are. Far from bitter I am amused and impressed how you can keep going You're still doing it. still doing what? That. You misjudge me, the post above was meant as a compliment.

Aye, you've sucked people into a completely useless and unimportant debate. Can you direct me to the useful, important debates on Toontastic please? I like it when someone plays devils advocate. Fop makes a slightly better fist of it than Thompers used to too. [/damning with faint praise] I have to agree, it was top quality trolling. The sheer quantity of posts, some short, some long without ever quite making a worthwile point but inspiring page after page of answers. Top notch wummeration You're just rather bitter that your "best" argument against my points was to get mad and cast aspersion at "me", it'll be ok though, I'm sure you'll get over it in the end. You misjudge me, the post above was meant as a compliment. I am also impressed by the little you drop in. You give me too much credit -I couldnt argue against your points -I have no idea what they are. Far from bitter I am amused and impressed how you can keep going You're still doing it. still doing what?

Aye, you've sucked people into a completely useless and unimportant debate. Can you direct me to the useful, important debates on Toontastic please? I like it when someone plays devils advocate. Fop makes a slightly better fist of it than Thompers used to too. [/damning with faint praise] I have to agree, it was top quality trolling. The sheer quantity of posts, some short, some long without ever quite making a worthwile point but inspiring page after page of answers. Top notch wummeration You're just rather bitter that your "best" argument against my points was to get mad and cast aspersion at "me", it'll be ok though, I'm sure you'll get over it in the end. You misjudge me, the post above was meant as a compliment. I am also impressed by the little you drop in. You give me too much credit -I couldnt argue against your points -I have no idea what they are. Far from bitter I am amused and impressed how you can keep going

Aye, you've sucked people into a completely useless and unimportant debate. Can you direct me to the useful, important debates on Toontastic please? I like it when someone plays devils advocate. Fop makes a slightly better fist of it than Thompers used to too. [/damning with faint praise] I have to agree, it was top quality trolling. The sheer quantity of posts, some short, some long without ever quite making a worthwile point but inspiring page after page of answers. Top notch wummeration

Like Michael Moore, Nader might be a twat, but the squinty eyed stupid voiced goon appeals to my wooly liberal sensibility. twat imo

Rolling Stone McCain article Long but interesting

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight. He just had to not lose after Hilary. How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity? Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to. Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid. Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread. Hilary would have had a harder job beating McCain, I think she'd have won but it would have been closer. I don't even know what you're arguing about now, like I said Hilary was Obama's biggest issue, once he beat her he just had to not make any mistakes to beat McCain. His hard part was earlier in the year. You can argue all you want that about that, and that Obama's 2:1 funding ratio over McCain made no difference, but it's a just a plain silly position form you. I wasnt arguing that, perhaps if you slowed down with the trying too hard quippery you might read a post or two and reflect on the point. Obama's funds were measured at the end of the process, months after Clinton was out of the race, reflecting his campaigning (i.e fund-raising as this is obviously lost on you) in republican counties. I'm saying he needed to raise that as thats what it took to win. Fair enough though, got a clear opinion, you think it was easier for Obama than it would have been for Clinton. I disagree but thats not a problem. I do think that the effort the Democratic strategists put into fund-raising (which essentially pays for people to go into areas to drum up support and things like the massive Florida campaign 4 weeks ago) shows that the best judges of that question thought it was a way from being in the bag right to the end. I'll derive my opinion from the Democratic strategists. If Obama beat Hilary how would it have been easier for Hilary to beat McCain? Hilary is a divisive figure in herself. Obama beat Hilary on the funding stakes too didn't he? Although she raised a massive amount and the total amount spent this year has gone through the roof, $1.5b or something. And I still don't understand why you think McCain was the front runner? He clearly wasn't. At best he had to run a perfect campaign with no mistakes and a couple of big hammer blows for a tight victory. So you've now changed your argument from he isnt black to it wasnt much of an acheivement anyway

As you know money makes the world go round, $600m to $300 was never going to be a fair fight. He just had to not lose after Hilary. How does that answer the question, they dont even address the same concepts? How does the difference between McCain's budget and Obama's reflect on his missed opportunity? Obama raised that money through his powerful campaigning, he got that money in republican counties, where demoscrats never campaigned before. Clinton wouldnt have done that or needed to. Obama had a harder job of becoming president than Clinton would have due to her appeal to the white working class (an enormous demographic). That is a ridiculous position? Only if you're stupid. Stop deflecting the debate too, if you cant handle it, post in another thread. Hilary would have had a harder job beating McCain, I think she'd have won but it would have been closer. I don't even know what you're arguing about now, like I said Hilary was Obama's biggest issue, once he beat her he just had to not make any mistakes to beat McCain. His hard part was earlier in the year. You can argue all you want that about that, and that Obama's 2:1 funding ratio over McCain made no difference, but it's a just a plain silly position form you. I wasnt arguing that, perhaps if you slowed down with the trying too hard quippery you might read a post or two and reflect on the point. Obama's funds were measured at the end of the process, months after Clinton was out of the race, reflecting his campaigning (i.e fund-raising as this is obviously lost on you) in republican counties. I'm saying he needed to raise that as thats what it took to win. Fair enough though, got a clear opinion, you think it was easier for Obama than it would have been for Clinton. I disagree but thats not a problem. I do think that the effort the Democratic strategists put into fund-raising (which essentially pays for people to go into areas to drum up support and things like the massive Florida campaign 4 weeks ago) shows that the best judges of that question thought it was a way from being in the bag right to the end. I'll derive my opinion from the Democratic strategists. The extent to which Obama inspired people to donate, and even more to get out and physically support him is astonishing. The amount of people he had on the ground canvassing, getting people out to the vote, manning phones etc is unreal. He mobilised an army of volunteers. twoplustwo.com is a huge american poker forum I spend far too much time on, with a big old politics sub forum. The uncynical enthusiam, and the sheer number of people who got involved was fantastic to see.

It's just funny tbh, the valid point gets lost in the frenzy, but it's still amusing. That would be the valid point you have an inabilty to make I assume

plus equals fop

Honestly Fop. I'm perfectly willing to debate any points on here. You aren't even kidding yourself man. You've ducked virtually every question that's been asked about the ambiguous statements you've made by saying 'I've already answered that' when you patently haven't. I don't think I've ducked a single question you've asked me however. You know this is true and so does everyone else on here. I've answered everything, as I always do, you just don't like the answers (as usual). Ahh, it's time for the ill-founded relationship spat tactics. "I'm not arguing, I'm having a discussion. I'm perfectly calm, thank you. There's no need to snap at me. No, you calm down." I think it's fun, I just not pretending I don't is all. Obama missed an opportunity? He turned the most socially conservative democracy on the planet from voting republican (again) by the skin of his white teeth and he missed an opportunity? Nonsense, he had to fight tooth (white) and nail (pink) just to get his ass (black) in the door. How man Foppy, I think you might as well hoist yerself on your shoulders and carry yourself round the room because you will never be able to top that line. Absolutely magnificent. Genius Again he had to fight hard to beat Hilary which was his biggest hurdle in his way to the Presidency. After he beat her the smart money was always on him. So what do you mean? Self awareness FTW. I am convinced you think that your (failing) attempts to prove some contrarian argument on a message board is a greater and more noble acheivement than possibly the single most iconic event in modern history

Racist. But what I find most interesting in this thread is the way you lot perceive people, at what point they become "black", it's really quite intriguing. Maybe we should try to find out about the East Asian perception here too. what I find most interesting in this thread is the way you lot perceive people, at what point they become "wum", it's really quite intriguing

Obama missed an opportunity? He turned the most socially conservative democracy on the planet from voting republican (again) by the skin of his white teeth and he missed an opportunity? Nonsense, he had to fight tooth (white) and nail (pink) just to get his ass (black) in the door. How man Foppy, I think you might as well hoist yerself on your shoulders and carry yourself round the room because you will never be able to top that line. Absolutely magnificent. Genius

Who would have got your vote Fop? Anyone but Hilary. But out of the two, probably Obama (or perhaps a 3rd candidate protest vote ). I'm holding out for the first hispanic lesbian President before I throw my weight behind them. I thought as much. This reminds me of the 'Lest we forget thread' where you chose Rememberance Sunday to tell everyone that they've forgotten WW1's heroes. As if you were the only one that could realise the horror of such a thing, when in fact, you're in very much the same boat as all the rest of us. See you tomorrow for more straw man erecting you attention whore. The fact is my point and position never changed, just the usual suspects (like yourself) enjoy a good mobbing and I think it's fun too so everyone wins. Every politician is exactly the same, without morals and existing only to acheive power your position never changes because your only position is one of assuming that all politicians have no other motive than self promotion. Your stance doesnt allow you to see anyother viewpoint. Therefore you assume Obama must by definition have betrayed his roots, because that is what politicians do by definition. The rest of the smoke and mirrors is just obfuscation and self congratulary verbal masturbation. Good job of pretending you had something to say though - glad you thought it worthwhile

So assuming for a minute that Obama has finally acheived his goal of acheiving power, using his Afro American/White/Christian /Muslim perceived appearance and backround in a totally cynical fashion. Appearing as a race warrior and pioneer to those who seek one, an Uncle Tom to those who dont want to be threatened, an intellectual crusader to those searching for a humanist hero (I guess this is your point even though you same incapable of expressing it) wtf does actually mean

Aye, the removal of the lowest tax band worked so very well (and they've still ran away from hitting the super rich and big companies as much as they should), not to mention car tax raises have helped out those less well off no end. They did bring in the minimum wage, and have given tax cuts and credits to the worse off - a system whch could have undoubtably been better but we now have a more progressive and more redistributive system than they inheritted But you can't just ignore the "anti-terror" stuff it is quite literally everywhere..... actually it'll be interesting with Obama if he reduces and stops a lot of the Homeland stuff, I suspect he won't. I am not ignoring the anti terror stuff -whilst not quite as all ecompassing as you make out - I do think we need to as vigilant about our freedoms as a perceived terrorist apocolypse. At least the fundamentalism has been calmed down somewhat in America now - I hope Obama is more interested in peace than victory I am more concerned with Obama's protectionist economic policies than anything else Well you're wrong. Its long been a tactic of the powerful and rich to promote a cynical outlook, much easier to keep hold of the strings if everybody beleives change is impossible. People like yourself to maitain the status quo, spewing the same old crap and thinking your clever doing it Aye a viewpint of total cynisism (sp??) is nice and easy. The self rightous smugness it breeds not so attractive.

I'm not saying his aim (successfully achieved) wasn't to do that, clearly it was. It was his ticket to power why would he not play to that? I'm saying it wasn't achieved in a "colourless" brotherhood of man way, quite the opposite in fact, rather than being all things to all people, he was/is/maybe will be whatever he needed to be to specific groups of people. Like I said just wait and see. Doesnt make sense, to do the former you have to be the latter. No you don't, and frankly you shouldn't need to or want to if you actually believed in the prior. But he's a politician and ends justify the means, so what are you going to do? You have to be the latter otherwise you dont win the election. I think you agree with that though. Yes, probably (unless you are the second coming), but that makes you a consummate politician, not crusader or anything like it. A politician will sell (or use) their Granny to get the power they want, but that doesn't make it right or them anything else other than a clever and ruthless politician. Some politicians can have a modicum of principle. Personally I like Tony Benn. I saw Tony Benn speak a couple of times in the eighties. He was magnificent, cogent persuasive inspiring. In hindsight I think he convinced me black was white to a large extent - but I still view the old nutter with a lot of affection

He's got an awful lot in common with Blair IMO. Both very clever operators that will only show a perfectly manicured public persona and will (and do) have very strong spin teams. Which is self evidently an absolute necessity in modern politics - I would also say they both are attempting to provide a progessive liberal government for their country, rather than purely lusting after power for its own sake Er... you're saying Blair or Brown didn't lust after power? Where have you been exactly for the last 12 years? Also "progressive liberal"? By ever moving the Goverments into peoples lives, curtailing all manner of freedoms and making "anti-terror" law a Carte blanche for everything from seizing Iceland assets to making spying on your bins or making sure your kids live in the right address. Aye, "liberal". Progressively neo-fascist with good camouflage and spin machines maybe..... or I suppose liberal in the context that everyone is equally oppressed. No I didnt say Blair or Brown didnt lust after power, I said they didnt purely lust after power. I think they had a desire to acheive power because they wanted a better fairer form of government. As for progressive liberal government - I agree its an easy phrase to mock and the anti terror stuff I have big problems with. By progressive I was meaning mainly a redistributive tax and social policy - which to some extent was acheived. You seem to beleive a politician by definition is out for power and nothing else. I disagree

He's got an awful lot in common with Blair IMO. Both very clever operators that will only show a perfectly manicured public persona and will (and do) have very strong spin teams. Which is self evidently an absolute necessity in modern politics - I would also say they both are attempting to provide a progessive liberal government for their country, rather than purely lusting after power for its own sake