1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 6/9/08 06:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: They never move, ever.
I keep hoping. God knows we'd be better off....
At 6/9/08 06:23 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: How was it moral to invade in the first place? It's obvious that we aren't making Iraq any better, all we did was take the one force that was keeping the religious extremists in line and hung him. Saddam was a bad guy, but at least he kept order.
Fallacious thinking. Since we didn't make it perfect the initial cause was immoral. That's a poor argument. And it makes little sense to use that as a reason to leave. If the state of Iraq is our fault (it isn't), then it's our job to fix it.
Your very premise is a non-sequitar.
Moreover even during the worst parts, we made Iraq better. Saddam didn't keep order. He just had state sponsored DISORDER. The same thing that was happening with the roaming death squads was happening under Saddam. But instead of being little rag tag militias with no coordination, they had the blessing and financing and coordination of the state. While the increased spat of "honor killings" is terrible, those who cry about it ignore the fact that during Saddam, the rape victims were usually killed anyway...by the state sponsored rapists. Even with Oil For Food, Saddam was starving his people (many humantarian groups placed the death toll at well over a million (10 years by a million is 100k a year, or still more than have died in the war)).
Things are still bad, but they have somewhat improved. We're creating infrastructure where there was none before. Creating schools. Disbanding gangs. And closing torture rooms.
There is simply no case that the war was immoral. But for the sheer hell of it, let's say it was:
We still invaded. Is it moral now to leave these people to the wolves, when, by your own charge, we are directly responsible for the problems there today? The answer is obviously no.
Cuppa, he's probably confused with a different situation. There were indeed cases in WW2 where our troops shot soldiers who had thrown down their guns. You're deliberately ignoring O'Reilly's larger point:
"But to draw a wider implication, general, when 95 percent, and I think you'd agree with that figure, of American forces overseas under tremendous stress, are performing heroically every day, to draw a wider implication at this juncture brutally unfair, both to our forces and to our country. What say you?"
His argument is that there are always attrocities in war, even by us. That there were in Vietnam, WW2, and even in Iraq. And that it's a small minority of troops. He believes that releasing these pictures will brand the entire military as bad for the actions of a few. And that is INDEED what has been done. Wesley Clark was absolutely wrong in claiming that no higher ups have ever approved attrocities. O'Reilly named the wrong place....and you chose the lesser of the two inaccuracies to rail at.
O'Reilly doesn't hate the troops. He may be an incurable fool and a loud mouth, but his support of the troops in undeniable.
At 6/9/08 12:16 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: The invasion of Iraq WAS illegal, as defined by the UN, which America not only started, but is still a member of. If you disagree with this, please post a coherent argument. I would suggest waiting until you're not high.
A ceasefire is an agreement between two parties to cease hostilities under certain conditions. If one party refuses to abide by those terms and conditions, the ceasefire is null and void. Clinton was absolutely correct in the 90s when he said he didn't need UN approval to bomb Iraq. Bush went to the UN to try and garner support, hoping that the entire world would rally behind him. Many nations did, but the UN didn't. So Bush went in with the allies he'd garnered. The UN can deem the war illegal all they want. But it simply wasn't.
At 6/9/08 03:25 PM, SolInvictus wrote:At 6/9/08 03:19 PM, ByronicHero wrote: I sure hope someone here bans all firearms: that way I can go into a person's house, steal any and all valuables, have my way with them, and there wouldn't be a goddamn thing they could do about it.what if the homeowner is armed with some other weapon?
Like a watermelon?
At 6/9/08 03:11 PM, JoS wrote: Its called cultural sensitivity. Kind of like how we don't have a problem with pictures of Jesus, but in Islam they have a big problem with pictures of Mohammad. Look at Canada, taking away the Hockey Night in canada theme song has created a huge uproar.
I'd call what we did culturally sensative. If they don't like it...screw em.
At 6/9/08 01:36 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Three within six months = rare?
Yea, that's a little odd. But overall, it's rare...
Time to pay attention...yeah, right, like you'd do that anytime soon.
What the hell kinda stupid retort is that? At least mine was hyperbole...
Actually, we did have people going crazy with gun massacres - Hungerford in 1988 and Dunblane in 1996 being the obvious examples.
Sigh, I forget that I have to spell things out for you. Gun violence in England was low before the gun ban. Violence in general was rock bottom low. Because of a serial killer (the Hungerford incident was not a mass shooting, but instead a series of murders, usually in isolated areas), assault weapons were banned. Crime did not go down as a result, as it was the first incident of it's kind. Gun control advocates pat themselves on the back that it hasn't happened since, though it'd never happened before. Then there was Dunblane. Handguns were banned afterwards. While nothing like that has happened since, nothing like it had happened before.
My point was that such things are virtually unknown to England. 2 times EVER is amazing. And that's due to something in your culture.
At 6/9/08 09:51 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: We have ALREADY toppled Saddam. There's no reason for us to stay.
So, wait. You argued morality...but are for leaving innocent civilians to defend themselves against the IRG, AQI and al Sadr militias with no assist from us? How the hell is that moral?
At 6/9/08 09:51 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: We have ALREADY toppled Saddam. There's no reason for us to stay.
How does that work? We created a frigging power vacuum. Of course we have to stay.
Otherwise we lost a lot of lives, and a lot of money, to create a broken state that will be quickly toppled by our enemies. And we have an even worse situation on our hands than before we started. That sounds like a great plan!
At 6/9/08 04:44 AM, dySWN wrote: You forgot the fallacy of false dichotomy he used (fund illegals/fund the war).
Don't mind me, just nitpicking.
I addressed it. :P
Thanks for the assist tho.
At 6/9/08 11:48 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: So why don't things like this happen in the UK?
Things like that are rare period.
Japan has strict gun control (a result of a Japanese exchange student being shot in the US, apparently), and one of the lowest gun death tolls in the whole world, less than a dozen. On the other hand, Japan have had three cases of people going nuts with knives in public places this year.
Time to ban the knives I suppose.
So, why hasn't this happened in the UK? After all, if people will find a way to kill other people, surely we would have had one case of this happening by now?
Shrug, cause it hasnt. The same reason why, when you still had guns, you didnt have people going crazy with public gun massacres. Different culture.
At 6/9/08 12:13 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: When I make topics, I don't do so to debate with every person who disagrees, I just try to open a discussion. For some reason you always seem to assume that I have the time to argue over the internet with a person who's idea of debate is deniable plausibility and faith in the hype.
Plausible deniability: Other people can do things in your name and you can claim you didn't know about them.
That's not happening here. I'm debating. You're finding every excuse you can to retreat.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out, on a purely moral point of view, that whatever money we spend helping the lives of illegals would be otherwise used for the military. Funding wars is not a more noble purpose than helping those in need.
Hardly. World War 2 was an extremely moral endevor. Whatever mistakes we have made in Iraq, toppling Saddam was an extremely moral endevour. Providing welfare to law breakers...not so much.
At 6/7/08 04:40 PM, morefngdbs wrote: BUT we have killed over 100,000 of your citizens, are holding your country hostage , kill who we want when we want, We are exporting your oil & giving you a pitance of the money & we won't leave until we're damn ready.... but not one word of appology for any of that is there ?
We didn't kill 100k people. Those people were killed in suicide and car bombs. We're not the ones doing that...you fail.
And we're not really exporting the oil either. Strike two.
The Hypocrasy is so thick its fuckin' near bullet proof !
There's no hypocracy, but ok....
LMFAO , I can't help it.... & you can't even see it , he shot a copy of the Koran a bunch of times L O L.
This hurts your underlying case. Hostage takers don't apologize to hostages. Especially not for destroying their books....Strike 3.
At 6/7/08 04:20 PM, JoS wrote:At 6/7/08 03:29 PM, LazyPint wrote:What if I used your country's flag for target practice? Patriotism should be in your heart, not on a piece of cloth.
Shrug. In America, we give people artistic grants to defile the crucifix and flag. It's considered a constitutional right to burn our flag. It's annoying, but that's it.
Most other studies say otherwise btw:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art icles/A33783-2004Aug25.html
(Note I question that Illegals pay 16 billion in federal taxes. I find that to be bs.)
http://www.mnforsustain.org/immg_mn_stat e_illegals_costs_erickson.htm
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pa gename=research_research2865
Arizona costs:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic /local/articles/1024illegalbill1024.html
http://www.amren.com/news/news04/06/03/a rizonacosts.html
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/
002645.html
At 6/8/08 04:00 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: There are quite a few facts in there, Wolven, please read the whole article.
I did. It's unmitigated crap and cites as a source a letter than it doesn't reprint. But hell, you want me to definitively rip it apart? Here goes! So, it starts by demanding we take his word on a source that we can't verify. So EVEN if he's being honest, the letter may be crap (and is immediately suspect because it claims illegals are taking "skilled" jobs, which is doubtful). It goes further to conflate legal and illegal aliens, which further discredits it. The article dishonestly shoots down claims of tax evasion by pointing out sales tax (that line doesn't work with the IRS). It makes all kinds of baseless claims (illegals make more wealth than they take...which is wrong on the face if they're not paying taxes).
So, where are the facts? I addressed several of the problems and here address several more. Its based on a letter that, even if it exists, doesn't make much sense. It uses a study that only looks at local benefits and doesn't take into account federal spending, state spending, and even the money sent back to Mexico. It doesn't talk about the lower wages they get, taking away from minimum wage jobs. And it expects us to take as gospel that the economy would collapse if illegals left...which we know from experience isn't true.
Instead of addressing any of my points, you AGAIN just claim youre correct and soldier forth as if no counter argument was ever offered.
I also doubt that you are in any position to deny other's credibility because they get annoyed, you can't seem to keep insults out of your posts, though you seem to be getting better at it.
I also made clear the reasons that I mocked you. I disproved your claims 3 or 4 times, and you just repeated them. I put forward evidence, you put forward none, except two appeals to authority: 1st of your professor, 2nd of yours (with that imaginary 158 IQ of yours). You sent two assinine emails, one describing bad debaters (which was damn near a verbatim description of you), and one asking me the simpleton question "Is the country going in a good direction under Bush?" which is a bit like asking "Does food taste good?" Yes? Some of it? Depends on what it is? You're kidding right?
Even here, I offered an immediate reason to dismiss it, i.e. the constant repeated claim (proof by assertion) that everyone who disagrees with him is a racist, but also listed 6 flaws with his general premise. I offered another 3 or 4 in this post. You didn't address those and told me to read the article. GREAT RETORT!
I don't know what you want here bud. Yea, I'm insulting you...because youre an oblivious moron. I'm not going to treat someone who's idea of a reasoned response is "Nope. You're wrong," in response to a rational point by point debate. You have to be pretty damn stupid for me to just out and out say it: You, D2K, MicktheChampion all come to mind. And it always comes after refusing to admit you're wrong in the face of the facts. Or, in your case, just asserting you're right and moving on...refusing to answer your opponents points. I said it before and I'll say it again:
If you want me to respect you, then stop acting like "no" is a counter argument. I see no problem with calling you an idiot...because I'm not going to act like you're my intellectual equal. If you want to step up and start ACTING like my intellectual equal, you'll get treated like one. If you don't...don't expect respect. And you pissing and moaning about me calling your retarded ass names for running away from debate screaming like a little girl certainly isn't going to win me over.
So are you going to keep crying Susan? Or are you going to step up and debate?
At 6/7/08 01:40 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Here.
Benefits ahoy.
Wow, simply stunning. How are we supposed to take this seriously when it starts by saying:
I find it hysterical that the fringe lunatics on the Right scream about this illegal status. They argue that these people are immoral, evil, and criminals for violating the law -- not for violating the rights of others mind you, merely for violating the law.
MY GOD! We're all evil for wanting the law to be enforced! (Eye roll)
Ignoring the ridiculous claim that conservatives have "wet dreams over people who break the law as long as they're not immigrants", the author admits that 4 million of the 21 million (~20%) are school children. That would be public school. That's all money out of our pockets. A disproportionate ammount of prisoners are illegals too. That's more cost.
Beyond that the article is short on facts. It talks about the loss of jobs if...well...jobs were lost. Acknowledging that 3,300 jobs would be vacated if 3,300 illegals were removed is irrelevant. OTHER PEOPLE would take those jobs. Unskilled American laborers. Everytime we have seen an illegal bust, we have seen their jobs filled by local American workers. Since the Americans pay taxes, that means: more revenues for the gov't, lower unemployment and greater wealth for Americans, and less Americans on the dole. Sales taxes (the only kind illegals pay) would maybe take a short term hit, but as the new workers took their jobs it'd go down.
If you're going to link to something, make sure it's credible. (I.e. not "everyone who disagrees with me is a racist and a xenophobe") This imbecile used the term so many times I lost count. It was at least twice a paragraph, oftentimes more. That may seem intelligent to a leftist, but to anyone else it makes us yawn. Ad Hominim may often make a factual argument more fun to deliver, but in place of a factual argument it rather sucks.
At 6/5/08 10:45 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: I'm not talking about the work of Che personally you fool, I'm talking about the Cuban regime in general - after toppling Batista the poor of the land were taught how to read and given access to medical care.
I know.
Che has no defense. You tried to bring it up. I exposed it as BS. You changed tactics.
That more have died under Castro than Batista? Also irrelevant!
Over-opionated bullies like you rarely do.
When someone offers something that is devoid of fact it's hard to decide where to begin. I'm not over-opinionated or a bully, and I still started....but regardless...\
This is irrelevant, you've already admitted your position on socialism.
As I do again later.
However, you viewed my disdain for Che as m y opinion on all socialistic programs. Which is beyond stupid.
A key component of a fascist state is coporatism, which is hardly socialist. You can't call fascists socialists, that's just bollocks. I'm willing to put a pretty safe bet on the fact that you're confusing Nazism [which was hardly socialism either, and ten says you point out the word "socialism" is in the name] with fascism.
OMGZORS. Teh Nation Soialeeeests weren't soialeeests,
That ignores their blatant disdain for capitalism.
Hell, I'll use this moronic leftist site:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.h tm
"In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state."
Private ownership, but controlled by the state is....say it with me...SOCIALISM. It's a different variety, but it's still socialism. State control of business is NOT capitalism. If you don't get that, you're not bright enough to debate this.
What about all of the death caused by Capitalism? In the third world there are millions dying every year due to completely preventable diseases, but whenever someone tries to topple their corrupt governments and provide basic human rights like health care, they're labelled a pinko and destroyed by the United States.
Provide a SINGLE instance. Capitalist right wingers argued against banning DDT. Socialist leftists got it banned. The EEEEVIL right winger Bush toppled Saddam and was met with hysteria.
The facts don't support your case.
I mean look at the terrorist Contras your government backed to fight against the Sandinistas, psychos who indiscriminantly decimated civillians and burned down health care clinics - all in the name of Capitalism!
The hostage taking FCLN were hardly the good guys. Taking exception with them was no less contentious than taking sides against HAMAS.
I'm not condoning any mass murder which has been carried out by "socialist" regimes in the 20th Century, but you're acting like there's no blood on the hands of capitalism and I won't have that.
The deaths resulting from socialism are directly relatable to socialism. The deaths related to capitalism aren't relatable to capitalism. We can get into detail if needed. But here it isn't needed.
Keep them coming, I'm ready to knock down anything you put forward.
You haven't yet.
They were part of the state apparatus.
THEY WERE PRISONERS!
They were helpless and in cages. Their executions were hardly relevant.
I'd say I'm a libertarian socialist actually, but what worth is there in a label?
You can't be a libertarian socialist. The terms contradict. It;s like being a vegetarian meat eater.
In terms of ignorance I'd say you were in a league of your own.
Good comeback. Mr. "socialist libertarian".
No, I fucking will lecture you if it merits it. If you equate fascism only with the killing of innocents then you're labelling your own army as a fascist organisation.
You labelled me as a fascist because I disagreed with you. You have no room to label anyone as anything.
You'd obviously say that from an ethnocentric neo-con perspective; but i'll tell you for free that in the rest of the world "Guerrillero Heroico" is the most famous image of the 20th Century.
Fuck, first you don't know what fascist means. Now you don't know what neo-con means?
Jesus, you're an imbecile.
Yea, I';m not a neo-con.
Idiot.
The Che "fad" as you call it has been going long before 2004, but again - you're speaking from a North American perspective. It's kind of typical that you lot won't assimilate something into popular culture unless it's been in a hit movie. I've never even seen "The Motorcycle Diaries", for the record.
When the first Che memorial was constructed after his death it was immediately torn down by the locals. Shrug, he's not liked by the people who experienced him.
"The commodification of the image has been ongoing since his death, and since the late 1990's has seen a resurgence. "
Che was immediately celebrated after his death by communist regimes. It was also immediately revolted against by the "common folk". The idea that he was a savior of the people didn's come about til the late 90s.
If I take your word, Che was a figure in some random country without mass media,
None of that changes my points.
I know that's a very subjective experience but it does point out that Che has, at least in my country, always been a figurehead of the left and a struggles against oppression.
By anecdote and person word.
At 6/4/08 09:36 AM, Elfer wrote: I really wish that people would check things before they just assume them, especially when they're crucial points of their argument.
Yea, I really don't buy this. Sorry.
At 6/4/08 10:45 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: WolvenBear, I know you're upset that I blocked you, but please don't rummage through my posts trying to find SOMETHING you can argue with me about to show off that big might brain of yours. I can't imagine that you found this topic any other way.
It was on the front page. Someone has a persecution complex.
Shrug, I think you're an unmitigated coward, but hell, I'm not gonna go out of my way to call you an idiot. I also won't avoid confrontation because your too much of a simpleton to actually argue when someone damn near begs you to.
Yawn. Poor baby.
At 6/6/08 06:35 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:I see no problem with that fine suggestion. :DI do.
You have problems with an enforcement measure. And resort to argumentum ad absurdum.
Also, it has been fairly conclusively proven that illegals, for the most part, contribute more to America with their cheap labor than they do with their costs.
No it hasn't. Illegals send money back to Mexico. They steal American jobs. They take welfare and other benefits. They pay sales tax....that's pretty much it.
At 6/1/08 06:57 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: Yeah, teaching the poor how to read and providing them with health care is really the stuff of Hell.
Gotcha. If I ever go on a murderous rampage...I'll just use my charity work with the blind as a defense.
Eye roll.
Erm... No. It's just that the way you display your sheer contempt for traditional socialist working class values makes you stink of the extreme right.
Wow, this is so stupid I don't know where to begin.
1. Contempt for a murderer doesn't reflect my position on socialism.
2. Fascists were liberals. And socialists. So calling me a fascist undermines your whole point.
3. I DON'T like socialism because it has left over 100 million dead.
4. You dont get 1-3 so I'm guessing you're not very bright.
The man has a point, the revolution is war - plain and simple. You're killing off the state apparatus.
These were prisoners.
You're a fascist.
Although you could do with reading the definition of a fascist.
Don't lecture me fool. You're not in my league.
Are YOU that bloody stupid that you think fascism simply equates to the killing of innocents? Not only is that stupid, it's fucking PUERILE.
You're stupid enough to assume that anyone who disagrees with you on deifying a monster is a fascist. Don't even try to lecture me simpleton.
Well considering that you haven't shown me a single famous picture there, I wouldn't say you have to keep going. Do you mind starting though?
I mentioned 8. If you're too lazy to look them up that's on you.
All of them are clearly more famous.
It's been going strong since 1967 and it'll irk you til your grave.
Uh, no. The Che is God fad started in 2004 with the movie Motorcycle Diaries. Before that, Che was taught to be a bit player (but a monster) in teh Latin Communist revolutions.
You can base societal observations on yourself, everybody knew who Che was before that film.
The simple truth is that even Wikipedia recognizes that Che was a nobody til the late 90s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara _in_popular_culture
The only major thing that they link to Guevarra before 200 was Evita (linking Che the character erroniously to Che Guevara). The Che chic nonsense started in the mid 2000s and has nothing to do with who the man was.
I've read plenty about Che, although not as much as I'd like. You really must be fucking slow if you only started noticing Che as an icon in 2004, either that or you live in some backwoods that doesn't apply to modern society. Neither would surprise me, to be frank.
I knew that Che was a murdering nobody from grade school. He was a bit player in murderous coups across the Latin American landscape.
That I point out that no one gave a shit about him til recently means nothing. Ask anyone older than twenty who Guevara was. If they know the name, they'll call him a murderer. His shirts offend any decent person who sees them. They're little different than seeing a Hitler shirt.
There's a difference between killing in a war and simple murder, dunce.
No there's not. If you exectue unarmed people...it's murder. Period.
Then you are a deluded, scary, pathetic man.
Shrug. That'd mean more if you didn't ideolize an executioner.
Okay, source time again. Let's see how many women and children Che Guevara ordered the execution of. Show me. If you don't mind, can you keep your sources away from the extreme right?
Your standards don't apply. Mine do:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/05/the -victims-of-che-guevara/
Oooooh. Damn, those fact things aren't comfortable. DAMN.
You piss off. The topic started asked what we think about Che and I praise him. I stick by that praise. He fought to liberate the downtrodden of this planet and you can all me names all you like but it simply won't change history.
Cause you're a fucking moron.
He killed unarmed prisoners. And he helped create the beauty that is Cuba's paradise.
I'll call you names because you deserved to be called names.
You deride Che for execution prisoners of war and then tell me that the planet would be better off from me dying. Based on a single forum argument. Umm, I think you should maybe also check up the dictionary on mental illness. Someone who disagrees with you on a forum is not a grounds for ethnic cleansing, fascist.
I didn't argue for ethnic clensing. And I'd be willing to bet good money that you're some loser white kid who couldn't tell your ass from a hole in the ground if I gave you directions. (Mick helps btw)
But hell, let's claim that you're the world's ONLY jewish muslim russian austrailian antartica visiting half black Che supporter...I still haven't argued that someone should kill you. Only that we'll be better off when your worthless ass dies.
I detest Hitler and in no way am I in favour of genocide, you're being ridiculous on that point.
No I'm not. Youre being a worthless shitbag in supporting a murderer that many don't know anything about, and crying about a murderer we all know about. You're not only garbage. Youre a coward too.
I don't know much about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but I know enough to tell you that to lump me with extremist Islam and holocaust deniers simply for being a socialist makes you sound like a paranoid right-wing lunatic.
I didn't lump you with Mahmoud and Hitler for being a socialist imbecile. I lumped you with their supporters for downplaying the evils of the man you support.
You're not very bright are you?
Although you're right, I did admire Yasser Arafat.
Of course you do.
At 5/18/08 10:27 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: To respond seriously, I never said I supported illegal immigration. Also, the only proposed way to rid America of illegal immigrants is to push them all out. All 20 million-ish of them. Also, enrolling more guards, building a wall, and enforcing stricter laws. Also, we can burn our money for fun.
Ridicule.
Cause we all know dozens of ways were suggested.
Or, we could do something way nicer, more intelligent, and generally improving our relation with the rest of the world by trying to make Mexico a better place.
That whole Clinton plan with Mexico never happened! Or Bush's various aid packages!
Heaven forbid Mexico sucks cause of Mexico....
With financial aid, political pressure worldwide support, and a change in foreign policy, we can make Mexico at least a good enough place to discourage illegals from coming here.
Bull.
It's not like life here is much better for them anyway, they get payed below minimum wage, are homeless, face racism, and are poor as shit.
Life is infinitely better for them here.
It's why they come here...
Not only would this solution rid America of most illegals, it would also show once again that America does have some decency left in it.
Everything America does in the world is decent.
Additionally, I don't know about you guys, but I live in California, and this state would fall to it's knees if all the illegals were chased out. Our economy depends on cheap labor.
No it doesnt.
At 5/18/08 10:29 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Also, I have a question. If your life was nothing but a steaming pile of poverty-filled shit, and the solution lay just over a border, wouldn't you take it? The only people that enter America illegally are the ones too poor to afford legal admission. Also, the work they put in America to keep our economy going almost balances the drain they have on our taxes.
Appeal to emotion.
There's that famous 150 IQ again!
At 5/18/08 09:27 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: If America is in such a tussle about Mexicans stealing our jobs and putting Americans out of work, maybe we should outsource the hundreds of thousands of jobs going to India.
This sentence doesn't make sense as written.
And obviously the only way to regain the money lost from immigrants not paying taxes is to give huge tax cuts to rich people.
Non sequitar and no one has linked these two problems.
However, illegal immigrants are cheaper on taxes than citizens....
Also, the decadence of our American culture is very grave and serous, because we obviously need to keep our stance as one of the stupidest, fattest, and most ignorant countries on the face of the Earth.
As opposed to the "Mommy take care of me" cradle to the grave culture of Europe.
Because, you know, hard-working, humble, honest workers who toiled their entire life to get here can only weaken our country.
Yes, they can.
Oh, yeah, and let's not forget that we, as Americans, have hate all the immigrants coming into America along with the illegals from Mexico, because obviously America only exists to maintain a white supremacist mindset.
Because being against criminals is the same as being opposed to legals.
Way to show off that imaginary 150+ IQ!
At 6/1/08 08:23 PM, Imperator wrote: I thought it was actually a fairly standard maneuver for a politician, his timing just blew.
He used the Church as an asset when it was of some value, and discarded it when it became detrimental to his campaign. Standard Operating Procedure #1248 for diplomats.
He defended his church long after it became a liability. Then once it got past the point of dropping his church...he waited an extra 10 minutes and dropped it at the least opportune time to where it'd make him look like the biggest liar and jackass. His timing couldn't have been worse.
And it shows how bad he is at this politicing game.
At 6/1/08 08:54 PM, Grammer wrote: I take Obama has his word when he said the church's inflammatory rhetoric was inconsistent with his message of unity.
I'm sorry, but you're extremely gullible. What kind of simpleton believes that a guy went to a church for 20 years and disagrees with their core message.
It's kind of sad he would discard the church he's been with for 20 years+ because some priests said some offensive shit, though. Fucking race sensitive honkies crying because some black preacher hurt their feewings.
It's the same thing going on for 20 years. He realized that if he kept with the church...his campaign was done.
At 6/1/08 06:47 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Anyway, past the mudslinging, this really shouldn't be new news. Obama, like how other people said, should have quit earlier to avoid this mess. However, you do have to give him credit on the way he handled the situation.
Why? That was some of the most inept politicing I've ever seen.
It was so bad that even a majority of DEMOCRATS now think him dishonest.
At 6/1/08 06:18 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: He fought the men of a heartless dictator who let the United States mafia use Cuba as a playground.
What nonsense. Batista was hardly a great guy...but let's stop pretending that what replaced him wasn't worse. Even if we grant that Che's cause started nobly, it decended into evil REALLY quick.
He was a soldier who did what he had to.
No, he was an executioner of innocent people.:
His impact on the world is so far-reaching that I can't even begin to discuss it with some spotty little fascist on an internet forum.
You're a fucking moron. "Anyone who disagrees with me is a fascist!"
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate."
Those are the words of a fascist. One you support by the way.
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/ne w/article339.html
He was an unrepentant monster.
I'm not going to deny the fact that Che executed prisoners, it was a tough decisions like that which ultimately lead to the victory of the guerillas over the fascists.
The guerrillas WERE facists. They killed innocent people. Are you that bloody stupid?
Name a picture more famous than Guerrillero Heroico. Go on.
Hmmm, let's see....Hitler comes to mind. Neville Chamberlain "peace in our time". Reagan demanding the wall get torn down. The Andre the Giant "Obey" picture. That's four, do I need to keep going?
Oh hell I will anyways. The four beatles walking across the street barefoot. Various photos of Elvis. The USSR sickle and hammer. Martin Luther King Jr. Mao (also the subject of radical moron chic). I think that's plenty.
Hell the Che fad started in 04.
You're trying to dismantle my argument and all you can come up with is petty generalisations? You're the one who's laughable.
Until the Motorcycle diaries, no one knew who Che was. THAT started this imbecilic chic that we see now. Even you seemingly have little knowledge of the man, shooting down legitimate quotes.
You're talking about monsters and human garbage, and yet you'd take delight in someone who is merely debating you on the internet's death? You're the one who's a psychopath. It's no wonder a jumped-up little freak like you can't recognise greatness in a man.
I don't recognize greatness in a murderer. And I never said I'd take delight in your death. I just said we'd be better off without you. I stand by that. You are actively defending a killer of women and children. One who took great delight in executing innocent people. And YOU are taking delight in telling people that he will be regarded as a hero.....tha t they can't change that. I repeat. You're scum. Human garbage. So piss off.
I'm not going to feel bad because some dispicible loser takes offense when I call him on his sickness.
Youre no different than those who idolize Hitler, Achmendinijad, Arafat, et al. I will shed no tears when your viral ilk die out.
At 5/30/08 11:28 PM, LordJaric wrote: At 5/31/08 05:46 PM, Imperator wrote: The same sort of logic was applied to Segregation. "Separate but Equal", remember?
And we all know how THAT turned out......
The gay=black analogy always fails.
Seperate but equal was determined unconstitutional because it wasn't equal.
For gays we make an exception to the written rule because they're in love. So they get a loophole which gets them all the benefits, while other groups are left out. Next?
At 5/31/08 09:44 PM, Imperator wrote: Which is a nice sign but not conclusive of anything.
TROUBLE ME NOT WITH FACTS! I HAVE NO USE FOR THEM!
I think the real issue is categorization. Same word means same category, different word means different category, even if the crap within those categories are identical. But I'm not gay, nor an expert on human thought, so I'm only speculating based on what I DO recognize as patterns in human behavior......
So, it's all about feelings, not facts.
Good thus far. I would absolutely love to be conclusively proven wrong on this issue. If people give those rights, and continue to give those rights.....all the more power to em.
But why wait? Better to do something, even if it's not based on legal grounds and goes against the way laws are supposed to be made?
At 5/30/08 11:21 PM, troubles1 wrote:The judge declared it unconstitional, the judge did the right thing.
Legally he didn't.
People are still being discriminated against.
Where? The law is that one man may marry one woman, as long as both are of legal age (or have parental permission), are not too closely related, are not legally married to anyone else, and a few other criteria depending on what state youre in. If these laws are applied to everyone...where is the discrimination?
Moreover, how is it fair to grant gays a loophole and leave others who can't marry out? Why not a man who wants to marry a 16 year old girl? Why not a three way marriage? Why can't Billy Bob legally marry his sister? Sounds like discrimination to me.
Common sense would dictated things like that would never happen.
That's a BS argument and you know it.
At 6/1/08 06:00 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: It's now a proven fact; Barack Hussein Adolf Satan Obama hates christianity!
am I a typical neo-con yet?
Nope just a typical mindless Obama drone.
At 6/1/08 05:29 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: He was a guerilla freedom fighter who stood up for the poor of the planet, his image will live on for a thousand years after anyone you think is important now has died.
He was a mass murderer who trained Castro's execution squads. He was a monster and a maniac. His real impact on the world was to empower other communist murderers to turn states like Cuba into the "socialist paradises" they are today.
At 6/1/08 05:52 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: You are addressing points I haven't made, cretin. I have not said a single thing about present day Cuba, I was merely pointing out that Guerrillero Heroico is the most famous image of the 20th Century and will still be known when you're long buried. You're the pathetic one for getting so worked up about a man's legacy you'll never be able to change, have a good cry.
He is addressing the fact that, like so many other socialist supporting scum, you are defending a monster against deserved criticism.
Saying he's the most famous image of the 20th century is laughable. Most people who even wear his clothes have no clue who he is. Regardless, setting history straight is important. And if you take joy in the fact that a mass murderer will be remembered in a positive light...you're human garbage. And we'll all be better off the day you croak.
At 6/1/08 09:34 AM, Al6200 wrote: Besides, if you look at everything Obama has ever said about race - it's clear that his ideology does not agree with Reverand Wright.
Hardly. Many of the things his wife has said match up with Reverand Wright. His crap about typical white people matches up too. The sermon he titled his book after is all about racist whites.
What the hell are you talking about? It's not like Churches are political clubs. You don't go to a church because you think that Church is your best ideological fit.
Uh, that's EXACTLY why you join a church. Because it is your closet ideological fit.
You go to the church because that's your community, that's where your friends are...
When most people join a church, they know almost no one. It's like going to a new school or a new job.
Over the years my pastor has said a lot of dumb stuff, but it's not like I'm going to leave the people I've known for years
Then, let's be honest, you have no clue what the hell the point of a church is. Or you don't disagree strongly enough with what your pastor said to leave. Either way, your defense of Barry boy falls flat.
You're pretending that him going to church is a statement of political outlook, but in reality you don't automatically agree with a church just by going there. For example, by going to a Baptist church are you saying that you believe the Earth was created in 7 days? By going to a Catholic church are you agreeing to every single Catholic ideology?
Yes. You are agreeing with most of it. And you're saying that the things you disagree with aren't that big of a deal. And if your church is political in nature...like this one...then the same rules apply. So, even assuming that Barry doesn't agree, he's telling us that his disagreements over his church supporting Farrakhan, Hamas and Hezbollah weren't that big of a deal. His disagreement about all white people being filthy racists wasn't that big of a deal. Etc.
This says nothing good about Obama.
And the best defense that anyone can come up with....completely ignores the nature of Church.
At 5/20/08 02:15 AM, homor wrote: the fact you're happy because someone with a diffirent political view then you is in the hospitial proves you are an immature loser.
There is nothing immature about hoping the only murderer on the Senate either dies or is forced to retire.
At 5/16/08 02:33 PM, Slizor wrote:
All right, I'll address you.
Yes. Drivel. Now fuck off if you can't be arsed to address my points. I'm not some 14 year old that you feel you can dismiss out of hand.
No, but you're still a moron, spouting nonsense and claiming it to be fact. If you made a point, I missed it. YAWN.
Fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way [disambiguation needed]" between capitalism and Marxian socialism.
Link to wikipedia, and the site says "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed."
That's because the nazi "third way" wasn't between communism and capitalism, but between right and left. The third way saw itself as getting things done.
What kinda idiot links to a site that say "info is probably not accurate" as proof?
Where are your facts?
See above, platform of the nazis, platform of fascism, etc?
You know, the stuff none of you fools has had the temerity to address?
Offer evidence against your unsupported point?
How about one of the points of the Nazi part's 20 point platform?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Fasc ism (since you like Wiki so much)
"...that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens... the abolition of all incomes unearned by work... the ruthless confiscation of all war profits... the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations... profit-sharing in large enterprises... extensive development of insurance for old-age... land reform suitable to our national requirements...[52]"
HOLY CRAP! THAT'S SOCIALISM!
Irrelevant. You've offered no bridge between the points and I'm not filling in the gaps for you.
You're simply wrong, as evidenced by everything I provided here.
Oh yes, I can make statements too. Next?
HAHA. To quote cellardoor, you're a fucking coward. If you can't be bothered to even engage with my arguments then fuck off. Simple as.
What haven't I engaged? You're wrong. I've provided dozens of examples of nazi socialism. I even use your favorite source as a link. You provide me a crappy "factual dispute" link and call the deal settled. Are you stupid?
What, for asking for your definition? Shocking isn't it.
OK chuckles. You (or someone stupid like you) claimed capitalism was to blame for starvation. This was in response to acknowledging socialism was to blame for millions of deaths by forcing their populous to starve. I asked for a single ONE example of capitalism doing the same thing. None of you could provide it. Why? It doesn't exist.
*Yawn* People tend to change the subject (as you have done) in an effort to avoid points, not answer points and then remark.
Have I claimed right wingers aren't wrong? No. Do I take exception with right wingers on matters of fact more than every leftist on this board combined. Yes.
You're simply not intelligent enough to debate me. So you call me a right winger, attack my integrity, and defile my character. Meanwhile, your stupid ass can't be bothered to debate teh dozens of points I put up the prove Hitler was a socialist.
Piss off lightweight.
At 5/15/08 07:13 PM, Phratt wrote: All conservatives are evil, stupid and incestual. Why would anyone want that?
Because conservatism isn't evil, stupid or incestual? And if idiotic liberals would stop calling Conservatives "sister fuckers" and looked at the facts, they'd see our ideas worked better. Just a thought.
At 5/15/08 07:45 PM, Phratt wrote: That makes sense. But I think your the wrong kind of conservative, I was mainly talking to the conservatives like Mcain. You definetly don't seem like that kind of conservative, IMO you seem more libral just not for drastic change.
McCain is a liberal.
What is with these stupid leftists calling liberal Republicans conservative? Are you too dumb to see your own ideology at work?
At 5/15/08 07:54 PM, Ravariel wrote: 1) They feel a strong sense of duty and commitment to authority and tradition. As such, many more "liberal" ideas, such as gay marriage and abortion run counter to what they see as a rich tradition.
Or they see abortion as murder and gays as trying to undermine marriage.
You know, call a spade a spade.
2) Change for the sake of change isn't necessary: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
True dat.
3) Generally more religious. Following from point 1, this encourages a much more strict interpretation of what they see as the ultimate authority, and a strong adherance to their dogma.
Generally a good thing.
4) Fiscally, a true conservative will be for extensive spending reductions in government, along with tax cuts... both of which are excellent ideas. Many of our entitlements sometimes will come under fire from them as well, like Medicare, Welfare, universal health care... they believe that the free market will be better able to give people a wider range of health care options and be able to do it more efficiently.
Which is all true. Walmart has done more to make health care affordable for people LAST YEAR than the government has done in the past century.
At 5/16/08 02:03 AM, Doublelinked wrote: Okay, I'm not saying I agree with the OP but the two examples you gave weren't very good because at that point in time the Democrat and the Republican parties were basically switched around Republicans started as a party that wanted the government to step in and stop certain issues which technically looks more liberal but can apply to both if you get into values. While the Democrats wanted the federal government to stay out of the states business such as slavery and tax issues like in South Carolina refusing to pay taxes and saying they had the power of nullification over the federal government (conservative).
That is a backwards view of history if ever I heard one.
Democrats demanded a balance between slave and free states. New states were expected to be made slave states, even if it invalidated current laws (state or federal). Furthermore, the free states were expected to participate is slave returns to the slave states. If we wish for a broad generalization to explain the state of things: Democrats were about doing whatever it took to keep slavery going, and Republicans want to end it.
Trying to bring in "state's rights" is a red herring, as an individuals rights always trump the states. Republicans, like now, believed that the right to life and to freedom, trumped arbitrary state rights (which were federally enshrined). Democrats used whatever argument they could to keep the abhorrant practice going (like now).
Both parties have clearly changed and so have issues.
Or not. The parties are the same.
At 5/16/08 09:14 AM, Elfer wrote:At 5/15/08 10:39 PM, AdamRice wrote: The real question is, why would a conservative support the Bush administration and their very liberal government spending?Hoodwinked by sensationalist moral issues.
Bush's big spending goes against conservative ideals. He is the first president to fund Embryonic stem cell research. He has expanded funding to Planned Parenthood. He increases ethanol funding. He spends like crazy to make education nationalized. It's not like Bush is some massive right winger. He is a left of center politician. But because he publically proclaims abortion is wrong and taxes should be lowered, he's a strict conservative, YAWN.
Even Iraq was a liberal venture.
