EKUL NEEDS TO BE OUTTED!!! WHO AGREES!!

[chaos]

Ekul is good for GetBig.

You're reaching with this one.

[King Shizzo]

So what! He got in the car knowing the driver was a revhead hoon.  The car he was killed in was never technically designed for the road, it is a fine tuned, finicky piece of racing machinery.  Do you think Paul said, now listen buddy, drive carefully and obey the speed limits.  Paul himself has admitted to driving in excess of 300 km/h on public roads.  When a friend offers to take you 'for a spin' in his overpowered Porsche Carrera GT, do you think the passenger doesn't know what that means.  If Paul Walker was an advocate for driving safely and responsibly, and didn't have a history of reckless driving himself or the promotion of it in his movies, then yes, it would be a tragedy that some reckless driver would endanger someone who so obviously was against the practise of driving in such a manner, but that's not the case.  Paul was a victim of his own disregard for road safety.

Paul probably would have driven the same way as his friend. That is not the point. Paul was not driving that Porsche. He was not speeding. He had no control over his fate on that day..

A passenger dying because of a reckless driver is a tragedy. It does not matter that he was famous.

[Bevo]

He promoted reckless driving and this has led to countless people being unnecessarily killed.  Your argument is akin to suggesting the Marlboro Man wasn't complicit in the promotion of cigarettes and the countless unnecessary deaths that came from that.  At least the Marlboro man had the good sense to become an  anti-smoking crusader after developing lung cancer.  Had Paul survived, I doubt he would have had the good sense to do the same, after all what's more important, preventing people being killed in road accidents or profiting from the movies that help promote unnecesary carnage in the first place.

This is the thing, people don't like to hold celebrities accountable.  There are consequences for your actions, and I find it fitting that a man who promoted reckless driving was killed by someone who embraced the philosophy.  Unfortunately, the influence his movies will have will continue to affect young douchebags everywhere and many more will  continue dying thanks to fast and furious fanboys.

He didn't promote reckless driving. He was a car enthusiast who promoted tuning cars, the whole car culture, tracking, etc....

The movies are just that... He's an actor like all of Hollywood

If people can't get past that and emulating what's on tv and can't diff from real life that's your own fault and you're an idiot to begin with

All u do is blame! Bet your stance is the same on assault rifles/guns, violent video games...

[no one]

Paul probably would have driven the same way as his friend. That is not the point. Paul was not driving that Porsche. He was not speeding. He had no control over his fate on that day..

A passenger dying because of a reckless driver is a tragedy. It does not matter that he was famous.

according to E-Kul then paul walker deserved to die for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. SO WHAT he was in the passenger seat.

just like E-Kul deserved to get mauled by pitbulls, disfigured and emotionally scarred for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

sounds logical to me.

[NarcissisticDeity]

So what! He got in the car knowing the driver was a revhead hoon.  The car he was killed in was never technically designed for the road, it is a fine tuned, finicky piece of racing machinery.  Do you think Paul said, now listen buddy, drive carefully and obey the speed limits.  Paul himself has admitted to driving in excess of 300 km/h on public roads.  When a friend offers to take you 'for a spin' in his overpowered Porsche Carrera GT, do you think the passenger doesn't know what that means.  If Paul Walker was an advocate for driving safely and responsibly, and didn't have a history of reckless driving himself or the promotion of it in his movies, then yes, it would be a tragedy that some reckless driver would endanger someone who so obviously was against the practise of driving in such a manner, but that's not the case.  Paul was a victim of his own disregard for road safety.

The car he was killed in was never technically designed for the road, it is a fine tuned, finicky piece of racing machinery.

This is exactly where you go wrong. This is just a blatant lie and this is where you always go wrong by trying to supplement lies in your argument to prove you're right. , the car was absolutely designed for the road , it has road tires designed to last thousands of miles when races tires designed to last a couple of hundred. It was designed to use regular petrol and not race fuel , it was designed with a road going suspension which is soft , much softer than a race car , for bumps , pot holes and transitions , I could continue but there is no point

These auto makers know these cars never going to be used to their full potential and the stats are for bragging rights. These cars would be left for dead on a race track compared to a real race car. They are very capable in the right hands and the driver was capable , you don't know what caused the accident you're working on assumptions but you're bending the facts to meet you already presupposed conclusion and this is why people can't take you seriously.

[Kwon_2]

E-KUL just needs some Heme-Iron in his life

[Radical Plato]

Newsflash - there is no such thing as a human right to safety and security.

The sooner you accept this the sooner you will accept that life doesnt work the way you think it should and no one is bound by your backwards ass, quasi-dictatorial logic.

Oh Brother, their is such a thing as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with countless references to safety and security of the individual.  Try reading it, because nowhere in that document does it say an individual should have the right to endanger other people's lives for thrills.  Thank God society is based on the way I think and not on the average Getbiggers backward ass dictatorial logic.  If it was there would be no rules and utter chaos.  I often wonder how such individuals go with authority, when pulled over for a traffic violation, does such a person call the police officer a quasi dictator enforcing backward ass logic and the sooner the policemen accepts that rules don't apply to them the better off they will be.  Getbiggers,  shheesssh!

[no one]

This is exactly where you go wrong. This is just a blatant lie and this is where you always go wrong by trying to supplement lies in your argument to prove you're right. , the car was absolutely designed for the road , it has road tires designed to last thousands of miles when races tires designed to last a couple of hundred. It was designed to use regular petrol and not race fuel , it was designed with a road going suspension which is soft , much softer than a race car , for bumps , pot holes and transitions , I could continue but there is no point

These auto makers know these cars never going to be used to their full potential and the stats are for bragging rights. These cars would be left for dead on a race track compared to a real race car. They are very capable in the right hands and the driver was capable , you don't know what caused the accident you're working on assumptions but you're bending the facts to meet you already presupposed conclusion and this is why people can't take you seriously.

just like when he said 'hitler never personally killed a jew!'

you cannot take his posts seriously. he scatters then with bullshit under the guise of it being fact.

that's why I don't debate him. I just call him an idiot as you just can't debate stupid.

[King Shizzo]

Oh Brother, their is such a thing as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with countless references to safety and security of the individual.  Try reading it, because nowhere in that document does it say an individual should have the right to endanger other people's lives for thrills.  Thank God society is based on the way I think and not on the average Getbiggers backward ass dictatorial logic.  If it was there would be no rules and utter chaos.  I often wonder how such individuals go with authority, when pulled over for a traffic violation, does such a person call the police officer a quasi dictator enforcing backward ass logic and the sooner the policemen accepts that rules don't apply to them the better off they will be.  Getbiggers,  shheesssh!

We are homosapiens. Mammals in its purest form. We all make mistakes in our lives. The problem is that we do not see in hindsight.

You like to judge in absolutes. You are just a scared loser living a hate-filled existence.

You may have opinions, but they are almost never right.

[Radical Plato]

This is exactly where you go wrong. This is just a blatant lie and this is where you always go wrong by trying to supplement lies in your argument to prove you're right. , the car was absolutely designed for the road , it has road tires designed to last thousands of miles when races tires designed to last a couple of hundred. It was designed to use regular petrol and not race fuel , it was designed with a road going suspension which is soft , much softer than a race car , for bumps , pot holes and transitions , I could continue but there is no point

These auto makers know these cars never going to be used to their full potential and the stats are for bragging rights. These cars would be left for dead on a race track compared to a real race car. They are very capable in the right hands and the driver was capable , you don't know what caused the accident you're working on assumptions but you're bending the facts to meet you already presupposed conclusion and this is why people can't take you seriously.

Personally, the point is moot, I don't care if it was a beat up Volkswagen combi van.  The issue is hoon driving and blatant disregard for the rues of the road.  And we do know what was involved, excessive speed. It has been reported and acknowledged by the authorities.  Even the dumbest of imbeciles could tell from the state of the vehicle that speed was involved Treating people as if they are stupid when circumstances are obvious doesn't help your cause.  Suggesting two known hoon drivers took a drive to nowhere in a high powered sports car only to drive around the block at 45mph is incredulous.  if you didn't treat people with such disdain, maybe I could take you seriously.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Oh Brother, their is such a thing as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with countless references to safety and security of the individual.  Try reading it, because nowhere in that document does it say an individual should have the right to endanger other people's lives for thrills.  Thank God society is based on the way I think and not on the average Getbiggers backward ass dictatorial logic.  If it was there would be no rules and utter chaos.  I often wonder how such individuals go with authority, when pulled over for a traffic violation, does such a person call the police officer a quasi dictator enforcing backward ass logic and the sooner the policemen accepts that rules don't apply to them the better off they will be.  Getbiggers,  shheesssh!

Yes and you would deny a 5'0" tall woman who weighs 100lbs the right to carry a firearm to protect herself against someone 6'5" and 250lbs because YOU have an irrational fear of firearms. Or how about people in wheelchairs ?

Thank ' God ' that I live in a society where we have a Constitution that acknowledges the right to protection. But alas we have morons like you here trying to revert to the caveman says when biggest strongest wins

[no one]

Personally, the point is moot, I don't care if it was a beat up Volkswagen combi van.  The issue is hoon driving and blatant disregard for the rues of the road.  And we do know what was involved, excessive speed. It has been reported and acknowledged by the authorities.  Even the dumbest of imbeciles could tell from the state of the vehicle that speed was involved Treating people as if they are stupid when circumstances are obvious doesn't help your cause.  Suggesting two known hoon drivers took a drive to nowhere in a high powered sports car only to drive around the block at 45mph is incredulous.  if you didn't treat people with such disdain, maybe I could take you seriously.

how the fuck can that point be moot- you brought it up. it was your point. now your saying its moot? what kind of logic is that? it's only now a moot point cause you've been made to look the fool for saying it. lol

some intellect you are.

watching you fumble around is great fun.

keep going, sparky. I can go on busting you up all day.

[King Shizzo]

E-kul grasping at straws in this thread.

[Radical Plato]

We are homosapiens. Mammals in its purest form. We all make mistakes in our life. The problem is that we do not see in hindsight.

You like to judge in absolutes. You are just a scared loser living a hate-filled existence.

You may have opinions, but they are almost never right.

We don't need to see in hindsight to recognise danger.  All it takes is rational thinking and a healthy dose of self preservation.  You don't need to be a clairvoyant to know driving at excessive speed in a high powered sports car could kill you.  We all make mistakes in life, the key is not to make mistakes that take your life.

I like to judge based on what's fair.  Reckless individuals do scare me, as there recklessness could quite easily take my own life, and to me to take anothers life because someone chose to act recklessly is a hateful thing to do. 

My opinions validity is confirmed by the laws of the land, it is obvious by the fact the majority don't support the childish ideas put forward by the average getbigger is proof enough for me.  If this was two random teenagers who killed themselves in such an act of reckless driving you would be condemning them rightly as the douchebags they are.  But as typical sheep you are drinking the lets worship the rich celebrity kool aid and the media have told you how you should feel and think about it and like the good little sheep that you are, you follow right along.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Personally, the point is moot, I don't care if it was a beat up Volkswagen combi van.  The issue is hoon driving and blatant disregard for the rues of the road.  And we do know what was involved, excessive speed. It has been reported and acknowledged by the authorities.  Even the dumbest of imbeciles could tell from the state of the vehicle that speed was involved Treating people as if they are stupid when circumstances are obvious doesn't help your cause.  Suggesting two known hoon drivers took a drive to nowhere in a high powered sports car only to drive around the block at 45mph is incredulous.  if you didn't treat people with such disdain, maybe I could take you seriously.

Personally, the point is moot

It's a moot point , yet you attempted to pass it off as part of your proof.  No it was a blatant lie you just got caught in. And there you go , instead of making your case you go on the offensive with ad hominem attacks , thanks for proving me correct once again.

I'm sure speed was a factor , it may not be the only factor you're presupposing it was. It may be a mechanical failure and not a driver error. You're working backwards to fill in the blanks to me your already predetermined conclusion. Driving fast on public roads is bad 

Driving fast on public roads can be done safely , but driving like an asshole on a freeway full of people just trying to get from point A to point B is irresponsible and dangerous. YOU DO NOT know the events that precipitated the accident.

I will gather many more fatalities are credited to texting/cell phone use on public roads than any people just driving like lunatics , but you get one example of a high profile case and get on your soap box screaming ' SEE , SEE , SEE I said so ' 

And you don't always have to drive like an asshole to die in a car , low speed accidents can kill just as well. But you latched on to this because you don't care about saving lives as much as you care about proving you're right. You wait for opportunities to say ' I said so '

[Shockwave]

Oh Brother, their is such a thing as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with countless references to safety and security of the individual.  Try reading it, because nowhere in that document does it say an individual should have the right to endanger other people's lives for thrills.  Thank God society is based on the way I think and not on the average Getbiggers backward ass dictatorial logic.  If it was there would be no rules and utter chaos.  I often wonder how such individuals go with authority, when pulled over for a traffic violation, does such a person call the police officer a quasi dictator enforcing backward ass logic and the sooner the policemen accepts that rules don't apply to them the better off they will be.  Getbiggers,  shheesssh!

oh brother, im sure a bear is going to stop from mauling you when you point out that hes violating your right to safety and security.

Its one thing for society to declare basic human rights that we should try and uphold, like the right to the pursuit of happiness... but no one can guarantee you the right to safety or security.

Its wishful thinking at its worst.... much like the silly notion that violence never solves anything. /Raczack

[Tapeworm]

What I'd really like to see is kul vs uberman.  The perfect storm.

[Kwon_2]

What I'd really like to see is kul vs uberman.  The perfect storm.

I'd rather see Paul Walker on Getbig and E-Kul in the car

[Radical Plato]

Yes and you would deny a 5'0" tall woman who weighs 100lbs the right to carry a firearm to protect herself against someone 6'5" and 250lbs because YOU have an irrational fear of firearms. Or how about people in wheelchairs ?

Thank ' God ' that I live in a society where we have a Constitution that acknowledges the right to protection. But alas we have morons like you here trying to revert to the caveman says when biggest strongest wins

Based on your ridiculous logic, the 6'5 250 pound unarmed man now has a right to arm himself with superior fire power to the women who is now armed is a greater threat to him than he was initially to her.  Who protects the unarmed man who is now at a disadvantage to the armed woman.  

The irony of your statement is you ridiculing your own theory by suggesting that I am advocating for reverting to the caveman says when biggest strongest wins.  That is your argument when you suggest arming your fragile female, to make her the biggest and the strongest opposed to an unarmed man.  

Your argument is this
1) strong people have an advantage over weak people
2) therefore weak people can carry weapons that reverse the roles now making the strong weak, and the weak strong.
3) Therefore the strong that are now weak also have the same right afforded the weak as per the second statement
4) The once strong but now weak people can carry weapons that reverse the roles now making the strong weak, and the weak strong.

This will lead to an infinite escalation of the weakest seeking superior firepower until they become the strongest, which can never happen because using your logic the weaker person is always entitled to find a way to become the stronger person. , an absurd situation.  You will never reach a state of equality in terms of ability to protect oneself.  Sometimes power just needs to be respected, just as a human being wouldn't pull the tail of a lion knowing the lion has superior power.  It's not a matter of finding a way to protect yourself from the lion after you pull his tail, it's a matter of not pulling the lions tail in the first place.  Trying to dominate a superior force isn't always the best form of protection, it's like trying to take on lightning rather than simply protecting yourself from it.

[a_ahmed]

I'd rather see Paul Walker on Getbig and E-Kul in the car

+1 If only E-fool was in that car, would have done humanity a great favour. Paul Walker will be missed

Paul was young and a good guy. E-fool is over 40 and a loser on the internet, totally uncool.

[King Shizzo]

I'd rather see Paul Walker on Getbig and E-Kul in the car

Heyoooooooo

[Radical Plato]

+1 If only as_hamed was in that car, would have done humanity a great favour. Paul Walker will be missed by douchebags everywhere

Paul was E-kuls age and is now dead.  E-kul without the trappings of wealth and success still managed to outlive the dumb cun+

[a_ahmed]

hey e-fool how's life been treatin ya, i thought you were too humiliated and made your leave, why the comeback e-fool?

[NarcissisticDeity]

Based on your ridiculous logic, the 6'5 250 pound unarmed man now has a right to arm himself with superior fire power to the women who is now armed is a greater threat to him than he was initially to her.  Who protects the unarmed man who is now at a disadvantage to the armed woman.  

The irony of your statement is you ridiculing your own theory by suggesting that I am advocating for reverting to the caveman says when biggest strongest wins.  That is your argument when you suggest arming your fragile female, to make her the biggest and the strongest opposed to an unarmed man.  

Your argument is this
1) strong people have an advantage over weak people
2) therefore weak people can carry weapons that reverse the roles now making the strong weak, and the weak strong.
3) Therefore the strong that are now weak also have the same right afforded the weak as per the second statement
4) The once strong but now weak people can carry weapons that reverse the roles now making the strong weak, and the weak strong.

This will lead to an infinite escalation of the weakest seeking superior firepower until they become the strongest, which can never happen because using your logic the weaker person is always entitled to find a way to become the stronger person. , an absurd situation.  You will never reach a state of equality in terms of ability to protect oneself.  Sometimes power just needs to be respected, just as a human being wouldn't pull the tail of a lion knowing the lion has superior power.  It's not a matter of finding a way to protect yourself from the lion after you pull his tail, it's a matter of not pulling the lions tail in the first place.  Trying to dominate a superior force isn't always the best form of protection, it's like trying to take on lightning rather than simply protecting yourself from it.

Just lolz 

The entire part you missed is...................... ........................ .......? Protection from bigger stronger people who are intent on preying on the weaker ones who can't defend themselves otherwise.

Guns work that's why we fight wars with them  in your nonsense Utopia no one is allowed guns and people who are intend on preying on weaker people have carte blanche to do so. 

Jesus you can't think past your own prejudices , you're blind to any other point of view and will just type utter nonsense to back it up. I was almost not going to respond to this that's how dumb it was.  you're already just blatantly lying and attacking anyone who calls you on it.

These are exactly the same reasons I don't debate fundamentalists Christians , I smile and write them off as being to forgone over the edge to conversate with.

[Radical Plato]

hey e-fool how's life been treatin ya, i thought you were too humiliated and made your leave, why the comeback e-fool?

Life's good, probably not enough Muslims being killed for my liking, but other than that, life is pretty good.  It is perfect weather where I am, I have access to plenty of good food, clean water, a comfortable house, and a great car, a devoted partner and all the money and free time I have ever wanted.  SO I can't complain too much. I am just debating with my partner whether or not to go see Bon Jovi Concert tonight as we have free tickets.

Internet forum correspondence doesn't humiliate me.  I came back because I can.


Anyway, thanks for asking as-hamed.