|
Post by ordoabchao on Nov 15, 2007 13:45:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 15, 2007 14:16:04 GMT -5
I like Ron Paul. It scares me that liberals are trying to ban free speach. They want to make it a law that u cant call a black guy a nlgger or a gay guy a f*g. I will gladdly use these words in the defence of free speach. I'll call u whatever the hell I want too. If you can get locked up for calling someone a f*g/nlgger, then we are in trouble. Better start building the internment camps.
|
|
|
Post by archon on Nov 15, 2007 14:53:04 GMT -5
ur an idiot greatsatan.
|
|
|
Post by Levi on Nov 15, 2007 15:24:22 GMT -5
Strange that a die hard Republican would have problems with building internment camps, seeing as they already have built them and use them as places to torture people. What a sick party the Republicans have become.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 15, 2007 15:38:04 GMT -5
typical liberal. answers an arguement with a personal attack. why am I an idiot? Where am I wrong? If I'm so dumb you should be able to point out where the things I say are wrong. Instead, ur hate filled mind just produces an emmotional responce. SMACK
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 15, 2007 15:50:54 GMT -5
Strange that a die hard Republican would have problems with building internment camps, seeing as they already have built them and use them as places to torture people. What a sick party the Republicans have become. I gotta know levi, what isn't torture to a liberal? Is locking people in jail torture? I like how u claim republicans build internment camps. The only reason camps come into play is because liberal commies dictate threw laws how all must live.(because elitist liberals know better then u) The more laws you have, the more law breakers u get.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Nov 15, 2007 16:50:43 GMT -5
Such a well spoken comment, sir. However you are very wrong or very ignorant of what the basics, the fundamentals of free speech are about. Have you no concept what happens once simply or small steps are taken to delete basic civil liberties? These liberties, however unimportant you may deem, are the cornerstone to a system of liberties that I hold dear and we as a nation enjoy, unrestrained. To chisel away at that cornerstone is to erode the foundation of which makes us great, with liberties not available worldwide. "The attempt which has been made to restrain the liberty of our citizens meeting together, interchanging sentiments on what subjects they please and stating their sentiments in the public papers, has come upon us a full century earlier than I expected." - -Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1794. Perhaps that was a little to deep, this is the simplified version: "[The] liberty of speaking and writing... guards our other liberties." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Philadelphia Democratic Republicans, 1808. ME 16:304 In summery, application and intent are the bottom line. Words are generally neutral, the usage is what defines them.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 15, 2007 19:04:41 GMT -5
Strange that a die hard Republican would have problems with building internment camps, seeing as they already have built them and use them as places to torture people. What a sick party the Republicans have become. They learned it from the democratic party and FDR's shining example: the interment of japanese with american citizenship during WWII the internment of americans from japanese descent during WWII the internment of germans with american citizenship during WWII the interment of americans from german descent during WWII Of course, NOT to be confused with POW (Prisioner of War) camps.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Nov 16, 2007 17:56:13 GMT -5
It scares me that liberals are trying to ban free speach. They want to make it a law that u cant call a black guy a nlgger or a gay guy a f*g. I will gladdly use these words in the defence of free speach. I'll call u whatever the hell I want too. If you can get locked up for calling someone a f*g/nlgger, then we are in trouble. Better start building the internment camps. TGS, what you dont seem to understand is that the proper response to such a hate filled insult is, and always will be against the law. If it were legal for the insulted to simply beat the crap out of the insulter, I'd be perfectly ok with it. Go around, call all the blacks you see nlggers, and I'll be the guy with a smirk on my face as you get the nuts kicked out of you and you have no legal recourse. Set that aside, lets examine what kind of person it takes to act like that anyway... I get a kick out of the people out there that feel like they are somehow "better" than someone else because of something so random as who their parents were. I feel the same way toward all race haters, religion haters, gay haters, whatever. You're stupid. Not just you, Satan, so before you go crying about how this is a "personal attack by a liberal" which seems to be your rallying cry every time you cant come up with something smart to say, its not. First, I dont even understand why you think "liberal" is a significant insult, I think its just a cheap way to categorize and dismiss criticism rather than face it. Second I think anyone and everyone who thinks like you is stupid. You think being a white christian heterosexual makes you better than someone who is not? Sorry, it doesnt. To have that as a source of pride, or prejudice towards others reflects your own insecurity and feelings of inadequacy. Its not the black mans fault your mommy didnt love you enough. Its not the gay man's fault your daddy didnt love you enough either. Its also not the fault of muslims that we're in this war. True islam is a religion of peace. Same thing with Christianity or Judaism. They all follow the same basic tenants of "do unto others as you would have done unto you." There are extremists in all religions that like to twist the words of their own faiths and others faiths to manipulate other people. Religion = politics, nothing more. A means for a small group of people to exert influence and control over a large group of people. The fact is, the vast majority of the muslims want nothing more than peace, but a small, vocal minority preaches hate to the masses and gains converts. Much like Pat Roberston, they preach the extreme views of their faith, and they appeal to the angry. This has and will always happen through time. Does it make them all feel that way? Certainly not, as most of their faith shake their head and ignore the idiot. However, it gains the leaders that act like that exactly what they want, attention and notoriety. It makes people who are too dumb to see it for what it is knee-jerk to hate the whole group because of the message of the minority. Hate will always be a more unifying force than love, because its easier to identify. Its easier to find people to exclude than to include for those who believe they are thinkers, but are actually nothing more than haters.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 16, 2007 22:57:23 GMT -5
TGS, what you dont seem to understand is that the proper response to such a hate filled insult is, and always will be against the law.
(So if I call a black guy on this forum a nlgger, off to the camps with me?)
If it were legal for the insulted to simply beat the crap out of the insulter, I'd be perfectly ok with it.
(it becomes a crime when it gets physical)
Go around, call all the blacks you see nlggers, and I'll be the guy with a smirk on my face as you get the nuts kicked out of you and you have no legal recourse.
(I'de just walk down the street blastin snoop dog. Snoop says it better then I do)
Set that aside, lets examine what kind of person it takes to act like that anyway...
(lets)
I get a kick out of the people out there that feel like they are somehow "better" than someone else because of something so random as who their parents were.
(I agree. judge people by there actions)
I feel the same way toward all race haters, religion haters, gay haters, whatever.
(so u hate haters eh)
You're stupid.
(Yup, never said I wasn't.)
Not just you, Satan, so before you go crying about how this is a "personal attack by a liberal" which seems to be your rallying cry every time you cant come up with something smart to say, its not.
(not just me? dam. thought I was special. I always seem to come up with something smart to say. SPOON!!! thats a ralley cry.)
First, I dont even understand why you think "liberal" is a significant insult, I think its just a cheap way to categorize and dismiss criticism rather than face it.
(callin me a liberal is like callin a black guy a nlgger. say it and its off to the camps with u)
Second I think anyone and everyone who thinks like you is stupid.
(ok, I get it. I'm stupid. I think you cover this in just about every post u make)
You think being a white christian heterosexual makes you better than someone who is not?
(I think a black, gay, muslim (if that can exist) can be a better person then a white, christain, hedro. Its all bout the choices they make in life and the effect they have. imo. But yes, I know for a fact that some people are "better" then others)
Sorry, it doesnt.
(nope, it don't. Skin, religion, and sex are irrelevent to weather your effect on life was possitive or negitive)
To have that as a source of pride, or prejudice towards others reflects your own insecurity and feelings of inadequacy.
(ok, help me here TBS. I don't quite fallow. I was right with u too. I think your just trying to say I'm insecure because I'm inadequate)
Its not the black mans fault your mommy didnt love you enough.
(How the hell did you know my mom likes black guys?)
Its not the gay man's fault your daddy didnt love you enough either.
(My dad didnt recieve the proper training from the gays to love me right)
Its also not the fault of muslims that we're in this war.
(I think it is. We are the great satan. They wanna kill america cause of porn n stuff)
True islam is a religion of peace.
(I never said that!!! whats so peaceful about marderdom and killing infedells)
Same thing with Christianity or Judaism.
(or hinduism or buddistism or mormanism or even the scientology guys)
They all follow the same basic tenants of "do unto others as you would have done unto you."
(unless they don't, thats when u kill the infedell right?)
There are extremists in all religions that like to twist the words of their own faiths and others faiths to manipulate other people.
(Ya, so the extreem islams take killing infedells to the extreem)
Religion = politics, nothing more.
(religion is about morality. your politics are a refection of your morals)
A means for a small group of people to exert influence and control over a large group of people.
(or maybe its a way to get people to live together with a universal moral standerd)
The fact is, the vast majority of the muslims want nothing more than peace, but a small, vocal minority preaches hate to the masses and gains converts.
(they say peace, but preach hate. reminds me of an old ex-girlfriend)
Much like Pat Roberston, they preach the extreme views of their faith, and they appeal to the angry.
(pat aint out there strapping bombs on kids)
This has and will always happen through time.
(What if people aren't angry? I guess they loose there appeal)
Does it make them all feel that way? Certainly not, as most of their faith shake their head and ignore the idiot.
(This is a liberal wet dream. They preach hate! They preach that the west is satan and must be destroyed. I'll bust out some koran quotes and show u what it teaches)
However, it gains the leaders that act like that exactly what they want, attention and notoriety. It makes people who are too dumb to see it for what it is knee-jerk to hate the whole group because of the message of the minority. Hate will always be a more unifying force than love, because its easier to identify.
(yup, i'de say your right here)
Its easier to find people to exclude than to include for those who believe they are thinkers, but are actually nothing more than haters.
(ya, people are great at pointing out things about other people they dont like. Then they come to power and send those people to the camps)
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 17, 2007 5:30:20 GMT -5
can't you just FEEL the sexual tension in the air?
|
|
marr
Worker
Posts: 169
|
Post by marr on Nov 17, 2007 9:14:17 GMT -5
The Bad Seed Said:
SMACK!
War = Iraq, being the reason there is a war in Iraq because it keeps the terrorists off American Soil = War on terrorism = war on border security = nothing to do with Iraq or a terrorist stronghold.
What I meeeeeaaaaaaannnnnn is all the poor dead Iraqi civilians died why again? Ohh because of the war on terrorism in which Iraq was a reported terrorist stronghold?
I would refute point for point but I will simply counter the arguments now and save some time.
Arguments that might come from this post:
We the Republicans are strong on our stance for the fight against terrorists BECAUSE: it keeps the war off American Soil, we are protecting the world from terrorists, we don't want another ethopian scenario, [(EG: Black Hawk Down) Of course this is a post invasion justification] We go into other countries and remove evil dictators who control our interests, (Oil). The war in Iraq lets us show our left hand while our right hand remains unnoticable (EG: Secret Prisons for terrorist detainees all over the world captured by American specialists. Abu Garbu.) The War in Iraq demonstrates our resolve and our commitment to the fight on the war on terror.
Am I missing anything from the arguments as to why there is a war in Iraq still or does this just about cover it?
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 17, 2007 9:51:30 GMT -5
Marr, u left out my favorite right wing loony talking point. I'm not suprized because you are oblivious to reality.
You forgot to say that as a liberal, you where ok with Saddam going on TV and passing out lotto looking checks to the familys of suicide bombers. After all, they where killing jews and u believe israel deserves it. You, as a liberal, rather see the jews nuke Iraq and start a global nuke war rather then have americans just remove Saddam.
You need to watch some Dr Phil cause its time to "get real, mmmkay"
|
|
marr
Worker
Posts: 169
|
Post by marr on Nov 17, 2007 10:35:36 GMT -5
TheGreatSatan Said:
Saddam was also killing Kurds by the tens of thousands apperantly not only the jews. Saddam was a ruthless disctator and a tyrant who manipulated the UN and the world for a long time. You won't find no argument there TGS. Of course tho, Isreal nuking Iraq is an assumption and a little far fetched. Lets pretend America sold Isreal 500 bombs 5 - 6 years ago for the purpose of self defence, (pretending also Isreal used them in the war on hezbollah contrary to the permisions of the arms sale and America had to publicly berate them for it) *Shivers*
In the above TGS I give you two examples of a word called responsibility. The second one, pretending Isreal used the bombs in the war on Hezbollah, America was respobsible for the use of the bombs as they sold em for an expressed purpose only which Isreal pretended to breach.
The other example of responsibility; Isreal nuking Iraq (being far fetched) you suggest its Americas responsibility. Reason being its better America goes to war in Iraq then Isreal starting a nuclear war. From this I reason you think its wrong Isreal has Nuclear weapons and is in a position to start this (Far Fetched) nuclear war, (Almost a liberal thought TGS) and can also conclude from your post that further, its Americas responsibilty to protect "Jews."
TheGreatSatan Said:
Typical Republican, tells everyone not to answer arguments with personal attacks and 4 posts later, hands out the very thing he tells others not to do. Maybe its a republican thing, maybe its a TGS thing, whatever it is, its hypacritical.
*Smack*
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 17, 2007 11:37:42 GMT -5
lol, did me telling u to watch Dr. Phil and get real hurt your feelings? Thats the weakest personal attack on this forum.
Saddam was also killing Kurds by the tens of thousands apperantly not only the jews.
(as a liberal, you could live with that right. We had no reason to go to war in Iraq other then to get oil)
Saddam was a ruthless disctator and a tyrant who manipulated the UN and the world for a long time. You won't find no argument there TGS.
(so you're saying going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do?)
Of course tho, Isreal nuking Iraq is an assumption and a little far fetched.
(Far fetched? We do nothing but tell Isreal not to retalate. If we weren't there to do that. They would own the hole middle east)
Lets pretend America sold Isreal 500 bombs 5 - 6 years ago for the purpose of self defence, (pretending also Isreal used them in the war on hezbollah contrary to the permisions of the arms sale and America had to publicly berate them for it) *Shivers*
(sold, ha, I wish. more like gave. Hezbollah owned Isreal in there last scuffle. Isreals leaders have lower ratings then Bush or even the liberal congress. You hoping they don't end up using nukes is just a liberal wet dream.)
In the above TGS I give you two examples of a word called responsibility.
(where, I looked.)
The second one, pretending Isreal used the bombs in the war on Hezbollah, America was respobsible for the use of the bombs as they sold em for an expressed purpose only which Isreal pretended to breach.
(so the gun maker is responcible for the actions of the gun user)
The other example of responsibility; Isreal nuking Iraq (being far fetched) you suggest its Americas responsibility.
(America just wanted to prevent a nuke war. Ultimatly, its the jews responcibility to protect themselfs. And left alone to do that, they would of gone all out. Just like Saddam wanted. He wanted to bait the middle east into an all out war with Isreal )
Reason being its better America goes to war in Iraq then Isreal starting a nuclear war.
(see, you do get it)
From this I reason you think its wrong Isreal has Nuclear weapons and is in a position to start this (Far Fetched) nuclear war, (Almost a liberal thought TGS) and can also conclude from your post that further, its Americas responsibilty to protect "Jews."
(Like a typical liberal. You are more scared of an allie of the US having nukes then you are of Saddam having them. I know u'll never believe that Saddam wanted to buy nukes and sneak them into Isreal. He also made a giant cannon that could shoot a nuke to Isreal.)
|
|
marr
Worker
Posts: 169
|
Post by marr on Nov 17, 2007 12:57:13 GMT -5
lol, did me telling u to watch Dr. Phil and get real hurt your feelings? Thats the weakest personal attack on this forum.
Saddam was also killing Kurds by the tens of thousands apperantly not only the jews.
(as a liberal, you could live with that right. We had no reason to go to war in Iraq other then to get oil)
As an individual I completely disagree with the "WAR" in Iraq. As a Liberal I stood in my beliefs with Jean Chretian when he dismissed any calls for a war of the willing. When the UN says the war is Illigal, Kaffi Anon, why would our country participate in an illigal war?
Saddam was a ruthless disctator and a tyrant who manipulated the UN and the world for a long time. You won't find no argument there TGS.
(so you're saying going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do?)
I answered this:
"War = Iraq, being the reason there is a war in Iraq because it keeps the terrorists off American Soil = War on terrorism = war on border security = nothing to do with Iraq or a terrorist stronghold."
Of course tho, Isreal nuking Iraq is an assumption and a little far fetched.
(Far fetched? We do nothing but tell Isreal not to retalate. If we weren't there to do that. They would own the hole middle east)
You mean like they owned Hezzbollah?
Lets pretend America sold Isreal 500 bombs 5 - 6 years ago for the purpose of self defence, (pretending also Isreal used them in the war on hezbollah contrary to the permisions of the arms sale and America had to publicly berate them for it) *Shivers*
(sold, ha, I wish. more like gave. Hezbollah owned Isreal in there last scuffle. Isreals leaders have lower ratings then Bush or even the liberal congress. You hoping they don't end up using nukes is just a liberal wet dream.)
You honestly believe that Isreal will use nukes TGS? I mean honestly believe this?
In the above TGS I give you two examples of a word called responsibility.
(where, I looked.)
Not sure I understand what you mean.
The second one, pretending Isreal used the bombs in the war on Hezbollah, America was respobsible for the use of the bombs as they sold em for an expressed purpose only which Isreal pretended to breach.
(so the gun maker is responcible for the actions of the gun user)
At least finish my quotes. If America wasn't responsible for those bombs, (As they tied Iran into the war with Hezbollah by claiming Hezbollah was firing Iranian rockets) it would have been a bit hipocritical of America as Isreal was firing American Rockets. Does that make America responsible? Thats up to you.
The other example of responsibility; Isreal nuking Iraq (being far fetched) you suggest its Americas responsibility.
(America just wanted to prevent a nuke war. Ultimatly, its the jews responcibility to protect themselfs. And left alone to do that, they would of gone all out. Just like Saddam wanted. He wanted to bait the middle east into an all out war with Isreal )
How does this relate to America?
Reason being its better America goes to war in Iraq then Isreal starting a nuclear war.
(see, you do get it)
The only thing I get is that your argument is (its better for America to lose 3000 Soldiers and kill over 10,000 Iraqi Civilians on the premise that Isreal will use Nuclear Weapons if America doesn't take complete responsibility for all the jews that Iraq was killing.) Oh and America wants to prevent a Nuclear War.
From this I reason you think its wrong Isreal has Nuclear weapons and is in a position to start this (Far Fetched) nuclear war, (Almost a liberal thought TGS) and can also conclude from your post that further, its Americas responsibilty to protect "Jews."
(Like a typical liberal. You are more scared of an allie of the US having nukes then you are of Saddam having them. I know u'll never believe that Saddam wanted to buy nukes and sneak them into Isreal. He also made a giant cannon that could shoot a nuke to Isreal.)
How am I scared of an allie of the US having nukes when its the very basis of why you say America is in Iraq right now.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 17, 2007 14:42:31 GMT -5
lol, did me telling u to watch Dr. Phil and get real hurt your feelings? Thats the weakest personal attack on this forum.
Saddam was also killing Kurds by the tens of thousands apperantly not only the jews.
(as a liberal, you could live with that right. We had no reason to go to war in Iraq other then to get oil) As an individual I completely disagree with the "WAR" in Iraq. As a Liberal I stood in my beliefs with Jean Chretian when he dismissed any calls for a war of the willing. When the UN says the war is Illigal, Kaffi Anon, why would our country participate in an illigal war?
(we went to war bcause we declared war on "terrorism" after the islams attacked us on 9-11. Then we turn on our TVs and theres this dictator passin out lotto looking checks to suicide bombers in a terror war against our allie, Isreal)
Saddam was a ruthless disctator and a tyrant who manipulated the UN and the world for a long time. You won't find no argument there TGS.
(so you're saying going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do?)
I answered this:
"War = Iraq, being the reason there is a war in Iraq because it keeps the terrorists off American Soil = War on terrorism = war on border security = nothing to do with Iraq or a terrorist stronghold."
(ok, so your saying we shoulda left Saddam alone? Let the lotto checks on TV thing go. After all, u believe Bush planned 9-11 don't you? Saddam was a freedom fighter in your eyes right? He just wanted to free the palistainains from the evil jews?)
Of course tho, Isreal nuking Iraq is an assumption and a little far fetched.
(Far fetched? We do nothing but tell Isreal not to retalate. If we weren't there to do that. They would own the hole middle east)
You mean like they owned Hezzbollah?
(Isreal has one of the most powerful militerys on earth. Hezzbollah is luckey that liberal pacifist run Isreal)
Lets pretend America sold Isreal 500 bombs 5 - 6 years ago for the purpose of self defence, (pretending also Isreal used them in the war on hezbollah contrary to the permisions of the arms sale and America had to publicly berate them for it) *Shivers*
(sold, ha, I wish. more like gave. Hezbollah owned Isreal in there last scuffle. Isreals leaders have lower ratings then Bush or even the liberal congress. You hoping they don't end up using nukes is just a liberal wet dream.)
You honestly believe that Isreal will use nukes TGS? I mean honestly believe this?
(ya, they will fuk ppl up. The jews have a really long history of whoopin ass)
In the above TGS I give you two examples of a word called responsibility.
(where, I looked.)
Not sure I understand what you mean.
The second one, pretending Isreal used the bombs in the war on Hezbollah, America was respobsible for the use of the bombs as they sold em for an expressed purpose only which Isreal pretended to breach.
(so the gun maker is responcible for the actions of the gun user)
Quote:as they sold em for an expressed purpose only which Isreal pretended to breach.
At least finish my quotes.
(I copy n paste. It should all be here)
If America wasn't responsible for those bombs, (As they tied Iran into the war with Hezbollah by claiming Hezbollah was firing Iranian rockets) it would have been a bit hipocritical of America as Isreal was firing American Rockets. Does that make America responsible? Thats up to you.
(Dave has a gun shop, Joe buys a gun, Kills Stew, do u send both Dave and Joe to the camps?)
The other example of responsibility; Isreal nuking Iraq (being far fetched) you suggest its Americas responsibility.
(America just wanted to prevent a nuke war. Ultimatly, its the jews responcibility to protect themselfs. And left alone to do that, they would of gone all out. Just like Saddam wanted. He wanted to bait the middle east into an all out war with Isreal )
How does this relate to America?
(Isreal is an allie of america.)
Reason being its better America goes to war in Iraq then Isreal starting a nuclear war.
(see, you do get it)
The only thing I get is that your argument is (its better for America to lose 3000 Soldiers and kill over 10,000 Iraqi Civilians on the premise that Isreal will use Nuclear Weapons if America doesn't take complete responsibility for all the jews that Iraq was killing.) Oh and America wants to prevent a Nuclear War.
(13,000 people is way less then a few million. The other libs on here are saying like over a million Iraqis have died.)
From this I reason you think its wrong Isreal has Nuclear weapons and is in a position to start this (Far Fetched) nuclear war, (Almost a liberal thought TGS) and can also conclude from your post that further, its Americas responsibilty to protect "Jews."
(Like a typical liberal. You are more scared of an allie of the US having nukes then you are of Saddam having them. I know u'll never believe that Saddam wanted to buy nukes and sneak them into Isreal. He also made a giant cannon that could shoot a nuke to Isreal.)
How am I scared of an allie of the US having nukes when its the very basis of why you say America is in Iraq right now.
(But your cool with Iran having nukes right? We should even help them out in the development? After all, Iran is totally peaceful like Iraq. Islam is the religion of peace.)
|
|
|
Post by archon on Nov 17, 2007 18:15:01 GMT -5
For the sake of the children satan, use quotes.
Reread ur statement... according to satan, his definition should justify my free speech to say whatever, in whatever form and medium, to him, whether it be an emotional or intellectual response.
In defense of my freedom of speech according to satan's definition... ur still an idiot satan.
Much love,
Draka
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Nov 17, 2007 20:33:12 GMT -5
Simply going by this quote and saying you disagree with it...well. Satan may not have been subtle in the way he made his point, perhaps it was to emphasize or simply how he feels. I do agree with the basis of what he is saying. Once you start to remove... or the civil liberties are deteriorated, the freedom is gone, it will vanish and all that goes with it. ( Oh no! I ended a sentence with a preposition!!!!)
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 17, 2007 23:15:00 GMT -5
Oh no! I ended a sentence with a preposition!!!! LIBERAL!!!
|
|