kuzadd Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Can you prove me wrong?Leftwinger is not derogatory, and certainly mild compared to some of the over-the-top nonsense being spouted on this particular thread at the conservative crowd. If you can't handle leftwinger then maybe you should pass this thread by. How is it you know, anyone in particular is "leftwing"? What makes you claim that, other then because they have an opinion that differs from yours? Can you discuss a topic without this type of rhetoric? you failed to answer these questions. I don't do 'left-wing', 'right-wing', it's more labelling nonsense. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Wilber Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 pre-emptive warfare is rhetorical BS, you do realize that, it is just an excuse to justify an illegal attack, that can't be justified in any manner other then the manner of baloney, sales pitching. Not necessarily, the same rules apply as a fist fight. If you know you can't avoid a fight, you are an idiot if you let the other guy get in the first punch. Yes and a fistfight and a war are so relevant to one another (facetious) Then Hitler was OK, in your way of thinking, and what is your problem with 9/11, which can easily be construed as a pre-emptive attack.? They are totally relevant to each other. A fight is a fight and if you know you can't avoid one you had better do what it takes to win. A half assed effort just extends the agony and gets more people killed in the long run. How was Hitler's attack on Poland pre-emptive? Poland was no threat to Germany. He dressed convicts up as Polish soldiers and had them killed "attacking" a German installation as a pretense to invade. As far as I know there was no intention to invade Afghanistan before 9/11. If you want to call 9/11 a pre-emptive attack go ahead, but it was the latest of several other actual and planned Al Queda attacks in different parts of the world. Call them pre-emptive as well. As such you should have no problem with us and our allies kicking the Taliban and Al Queda's ass in Afghanistan. I mean, how many pre-emptive attacks do they get before it is our turn? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
kuzadd Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 They are totally relevant to each other. A fight is a fight and if you know you can't avoid one you had better do what it takes to win. A half assed effort just extends the agony and gets more people killed in the long run. How was Hitler's attack on Poland pre-emptive? Poland was no threat to Germany. He dressed convicts up as Polish soldiers and had them killed "attacking" a German installation as a pretense to invade. As far as I know there was no intention to invade Afghanistan before 9/11. If you want to call 9/11 a pre-emptive attack go ahead, but it was the latest of several other actual and planned Al Queda attacks in different parts of the world. Call them pre-emptive as well. As such you should have no problem with us and our allies kicking the Taliban and Al Queda's ass in Afghanistan. I mean, how many pre-emptive attacks do they get before it is our turn? "How was Hitler's attack on Poland 'pre-emptive'?Poland was no threat to Germany. He dressed convicts up as Polish soldiers and had them killed "attacking" a German installation as a pretense to invade." Poland was no threat as Iraq was no threat, NO WMD's. Similarities? even more.! Propaganda techniques to cause fear in the populace, to justify a pre-emptive attack and you even know about them, same as the lead up to Iraq. "Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist distatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." HERMANN GOERING "As far as I know there was no intention to invade Afghanistan before 9/11" then you don't know much and I urge you to look into that. "If you want to call 9/11 a pre-emptive attack go ahead," Nope, I don't want to, that is M. Dancer and Your way of thinking -NOT MINE. You two are the ones claiming pre-emption is self-defence, which is just too much baloney for me. Your fist fight analogy is flawed, because when in a fist fight, face to face, with an adversary you know, you will attack or be attacked. Pre-emptive war rhetoric is non-relevant, when the alleged attacker is half a world away, or across a border, and is non-personal. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 How then were the alleged 9/11 attacks anything but a pre-emptive attack??? Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you are a fruitcake.....never mind then and watrch out for those black helicopters Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
kuzadd Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 How then were the alleged 9/11 attacks anything but a pre-emptive attack??? Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you are a fruitcake.....never mind then and watrch out for those black helicopters Oh, did you not like my use of the word alleged? too bad, for you. I use the word alleged because I DO NOT believe the official conspiracy theory, it has always been full of holes. You weren't aware, I was a "fruitcake" lol! It never ends with you does it? The lack of anything intelligent to say, reducing yourself, to blubbering, blathering namecalling. Fortunately for me, I am so totally aware that is all you ever have. "Dictatorships start wars because they need externalenemies to exert internal control over their own people." ~ Richard Perle Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 How then were the alleged 9/11 attacks anything but a pre-emptive attack??? Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you are a fruitcake.....never mind then and watrch out for those black helicopters Oh, did you not like my use of the word alleged? too bad, for you. I use the word alleged because I DO NOT beleive the official conspiracy theory, it has always been full of holes. Official Conspiracy theory? Honestly, which brand of toaster do you prefer? Which one do you find, sends you the best messages? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Wilber Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Poland was no threat as Iraq was no threat, NO WMD's. Similarities? even more.!Propaganda techniques to cause fear in the populace, to justify a pre-emptive attack and you even know about them, same as the lead up to Iraq. I've never tried to justify the attack on Iraq. " As far as I know there was no intention to invade Afghanistan before 9/11"then you don't know much and I urge you to look into that. I'm sure it had been talked about and even some initial planning planning done but no intention until after 9/11. Be specific. "If you want to call 9/11 a pre-emptive attack go ahead,"Nope, I don't want to, that is M. Dancer and Your way of thinking -NOT MINE. You two are the ones claiming pre-emptive is self-defence, which is just too much baloney for me. A pre-emptive attack can be very much self defense. A comparison of the Six Day War with the Yom Kippur War is an excellent example. Israel suffered a quarter of the the casualties during the Six Day War compared to the Yom Kippur War when they were the subject of a surprise attack. In 67 they didn't wait for the Arab countries to complete their buildup and attack at their convenience. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
kuzadd Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Official Conspiracy theory?Honestly, which brand of toaster do you prefer? Which one do you find, sends you the best messages? It never ends with you does it? The lack of anything intelligent to say, reducing yourself, to blubbering, blathering namecalling. Fortunately for me, I am so totally aware that is all you ever have. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Official Conspiracy theory? Honestly, which brand of toaster do you prefer? Which one do you find, sends you the best messages? It never ends with you does it? The lack of anything intelligent to say, reducing yourself, to blubbering, blathering namecalling. Fortunately for me, I am so totally aware that is all you ever have. So is that Procter Silax or Braun? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
kuzadd Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Poland was no threat as Iraq was no threat, NO WMD's. Similarities? even more.!Propaganda techniques to cause fear in the populace, to justify a pre-emptive attack and you even know about them, same as the lead up to Iraq. I've never tried to justify the attack on Iraq. " As far as I know there was no intention to invade Afghanistan before 9/11"then you don't know much and I urge you to look into that. I'm sure it had been talked about and even some initial planning planning done but no intention until after 9/11. Be specific. "If you want to call 9/11 a pre-emptive attack go ahead,"Nope, I don't want to, that is M. Dancer and Your way of thinking -NOT MINE. You two are the ones claiming pre-emptive is self-defence, which is just too much baloney for me. A pre-emptive attack can be very much self defense. A comparison of the Six Day War with the Yom Kippur War is an excellent example. Israel suffered a quarter of the the casualties during the Six Day War compared to the Yom Kippur War when they were the subject of a surprise attack. In 67 they didn't wait for the Arab countries to complete their buildup and attack at their convenience. a pre-emptive war is not self-defense. self-defense: # An affirmative defense to a crime. The use of reasonable force to protect yourself. Self-defense shields a person from criminal liability for harm inflicted on a aggressor. For example, a robbery victim who uses the robber's own weapon against him during a struggle won't be liable for assault and battery since he can show that his action was reasonably necessary to protect himself from imminent harm. www.leanlegal.com/dictionary/s.asp # the act of defending yourself # Self-defense usually refers to the use of violence to protect oneself and is a possible justification for this otherwise illegal act. For you to be self-defensive, you have to be being attacked, it is not based on psychic interpretation, of what you think, maybe, someone might do. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Official Conspiracy theory? Honestly, which brand of toaster do you prefer? Which one do you find, sends you the best messages? It never ends with you does it? The lack of anything intelligent to say, reducing yourself, to blubbering, blathering namecalling. Fortunately for me, I am so totally aware that is all you ever have. So is that Procter Silax or Braun? I love that you just keep on showing me as correct, and yourself as a bufoon, and you just don't get it! It's amazing and yet hilarious! You run off and have fun with it, ok? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Official Conspiracy theory? Honestly, which brand of toaster do you prefer? Which one do you find, sends you the best messages? It never ends with you does it? The lack of anything intelligent to say, reducing yourself, to blubbering, blathering namecalling. Fortunately for me, I am so totally aware that is all you ever have. So is that Procter Silax or Braun? I love that you just keep on showing me as correct, and yourself as a bufoon, and you just don't get it! It's amazing and yet hilarious! You run off and have fun with it, ok? GE it is. Now which brand of aluminium wrap do you prefer? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Wilber Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 For you to be self-defensive, you have to be being attacked, it is not based on psychic interpretation,of what you think, maybe, someone might do. Some truth to that if it is just what you think someone might do but if you are convinced someone is going to try and kill you and you don't do something about it before they try, well, you're probably dead. But there must be come consolation in being right, I just don't know for who. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
sharkman Posted May 18, 2007 Report Posted May 18, 2007 Permit me to add my thoughts on the fist fight analogy and Hitler. Hitler was a bully and he was bullying to get his way in Europe in the mid thirties. Land was given to Germany in the hopes of appeasing this bully so he wouldn't fight, and he promised he would be happy with the extended borders. But some saw through him, Churchill being one of them. He was ignored, because everyone wanted to have peace and thought Hitler was like them. They all were wrong, as was Chamberlain. So, confronting the bully much earlier, before he built up a huge army and air force, would have stopped WWII. But hindsight is 20/20. Nothing would have appeased Hitler save surrender of all Europe. Where would we be today if that would have happened? Quote
Black Dog Posted May 23, 2007 Report Posted May 23, 2007 Bomb Plot Thwarted at Falwell's Funeral Even in death, the Rev. Jerry Falwell rouses the most volatile of emotions.Authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car. The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News’ Pierre Thomas. They were “slow burn,” according to the official, and would not have been very destructive. Quote
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2007 Report Posted May 23, 2007 "Dr. Falwell was a giant of faith and a visionary leader and he, as a man, has always been a man of great optimism and great faith and he has left instructions for those of us who have to carry on and we will be faithful to that charge" How's that for an opposing view? He's a charlatan and a fraud! He built a company to make money (and boy did he ever rake in the cash) and he left it to his family. He was a man that was filled with hate, as I've shown with the quotes I posted. What you've quoted calls for nothing more than spreading ignorance. Faith is nothing more than believing in something that cannot be proven. When you teach that type of ignorance to uneducated people and children, it's a very dangerous thing. Especially when as a leader you say incredibly dangerous things. "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" -- Rev Jerry Falwell "If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ... We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress. I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right. We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!" -- Rev Jerry Falwell "But these things speak evil of those things, verse 10 [reading from Jude] which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Look at the Metropolitan Community Church today, the gay church, almost accepted into the World Council of Churches. Almost, the vote was against them. But they will try again and again until they get in, and the tragedy is that they would get one vote. Because they are spoken of here in Jude as being brute beasts, that is going to the baser lust of the flesh to live immorally, and so Jude describes this as apostasy. But thank God this vile and satanic system will one day be utterly annihilated and there'll be a celebration in heaven." -- Rev Jerry Falwell He would've loved to be able to take over public schooling so he could 'evangelize' all the non-believers and annihilate all the homosexuals. Jerry Falwell was dangerous and it is the infallible word of God, through the Bible, that he has to push his agenda. When you spend centuries teaching people that faith is more important than the pursuit of knowledge, logic and reason, you actually get a lot of idiots buying into his garbage. Quote
Wilber Posted May 23, 2007 Report Posted May 23, 2007 Nothing like a good bomb to stop those pesky funeral interuptions. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
cybercoma Posted May 23, 2007 Report Posted May 23, 2007 Bomb Plot Thwarted at Falwell's FuneralEven in death, the Rev. Jerry Falwell rouses the most volatile of emotions.Authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car. The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News’ Pierre Thomas. They were “slow burn,” according to the official, and would not have been very destructive. And can you blame him, when Falwell preached for decades that civil liberties are 'satanic' and should be eliminated? He probably has no idea that people should have the right to protest, wherever they want whenever they want. Jerry Falwell bastardized morality so much that this poor person could even justify murder in his mind and he probably thought that he'd still go to Heaven, since he was only killing unbelievers. Quote
Catchme Posted May 23, 2007 Report Posted May 23, 2007 Bomb Plot Thwarted at Falwell's Funeral Authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service. And can you blame him, when Falwell preached for decades that civil liberties are 'satanic' and should be eliminated? He probably has no idea that people should have the right to protest, wherever they want whenever they want. Jerry Falwell bastardized morality so much that this poor person could even justify murder in his mind and he probably thought that he'd still go to Heaven, since he was only killing unbelievers. Excellent points cybercoma, and very accurate and true. This is, what you get when first you advocate against civil liberties and then advocate superiority of religion and rewards attained when acting for "God". This believing whatever you do is okay, as long as you accept the fact that Jesus died for your sins past present and future, leads to the dangerous belief that if you murder/injure in God's name or for God that you will still be "saved" and next to God no matter what. How can people, like Falwell preach such hate and lies, that totally are counter indicative of the 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule, and indeed the teachings of Jesus that are represented in the New testament? But yet Falwell, and others like him, somehow have twisted it that they can forgo the teachings of the Bible as long as they believe ,they know what "God" wants them to do...like embody most all of the 7 deadly sins and still think you're superior. Quote When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.