Printable View
You miss my point completely. I KNOW that for God's sake. But for now all anyone seems to do is throw stereotypes around as a way of avoiding talking about the real issues. That goes for BOTH sides of the debate!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
Reagan wasn't evil. I never thought he was. But I thought he was a bad president, and did some really foolish things. I think it's absurd that he was made out to be a 'hero'.
I don't have all the answers about whether homosexuality is 'natural' or not. I don't care either, it's none of my business what preference you have. I think it's homophobic when someone is not just disgusted by homosexuality, but can't handle it at all, emotionally... as if it was a god damn plague. It's not going to 'infect' you, I think we can be adults and put aside our differences for a second. It's not like everyone is going to become a homosexual, like some fad.
Of course it's wrong to judge someone as being homosexual simply for disagreeing with homosexuality. That's completely illogical on so many levels. First off, you're assuming someone's stance on an arguement determines their sexuality. How is that even arguable? Give me the vague phychological theoretical bullcrap which bring nothing but the same uncertainty that existed before.
Since no one 'knows the answer' all we have is our beliefs to rely on. If you believe it's [homosexuality] wrong, so be it, but you can't prove it either way, without bringing up religion, or disputed scientific evidence. You're going nowhere with it.
--------------
Also, don't give me that 'everything is in the grey, not black and white' speech again. No one thinks in the grey. You are prejudice about certain things, whether you believe it or not. Think of waht you imagine the next president will look like. Was it an older white male? We do it all the time. It's an undisputed fact that all our presidents were white and male.
It means that sometimes you CAN stereotype, because sometimes they are true. Sometimes you're biased, somtimes you're wrong. Who knows? We're all trying to figure it out, and saying 'stereotyping gets you nowhere' doesn't help anything but make things fuzzier.
A lot of republicans ARE white, older, males. Why!? Don't want to accept it? it's true. more woman are democratic than men. Minorities are more democratic than whites. oh noes, stereotyping. No, facts.
Using the terms redneck warmongors and all of that junk is simply a policial correctness issue. We don't want to offend the racist southern states, so we wont even bring up the issue, when in fact there might be a major racism issue more-so there than the cities along the coast. Why?
People use these terms out of anger, because they disagree with certain political issues a certain party is for/against. "Bush is a redneck warmongor" is not politically correct, but it's true to someone who holds a certain image of Bush. Bush is white and from the south, he started a war. By someone's definition that makes him just that -- a redneck warmongor. It has a negative connotation because of the feelings that person holds towards bush. It's not politically correct, and you may not agree with it, but no one is going to 'stop' thinking a certain way because it's not politically correct. A serious issue in our[US] society is PC in my opinion. Everyone is so incredibly afraid of offending other people... it's like we're even more segregated because of it (this isn't a new idea).
Anyway I think I've ranted enough already.
------------------
I totally agree with you. there is no such thing as black and white, in fact, sometimes there are simply no right answers to a question. But what I really meant is that some things are generalizations, labeled and stereotyped regardless. There are certain ideologies which we live in for exaple, that we accept as 'normal'... they are structured 'beliefs' that are sometimes not entirely obvious. Some people grow up believing and thinking in certain ways, liking the same foods, etc. It's common for people to stereotype certain people just by what they percieve them as, like the white male president I was talking about (but that's an extreme example). You can only give generalizations. People still however tend to stereotype these generalizations, which is impossible to stop... we all do it subconsciously; it's natural. If you see 10 red signs in a row you expect the next one to be red, even if most of the signs are yellow. That's the way our brains work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
Oh hey, it's a WSU student. I know some people over there. Anyways...
Not everybody sees things in black and white, and things AREN'T in black and white, even if we perceive them to be. There are trends of things, yes, and they are statistically proven as fact, but that hardly makes them black and white. Black and white is one side or another, and in a world this complex it simply isn't plausible. There are people who tend to see things in black and white, and they are also generally more prone to certain traits like racism, but again just because the traits are correllated doesn't mean that they are always the case. Simply because there are exceptions to every stereotype is what makes it... unprofessional. Political Correctness is a whole other issue, so I'll not agree or disagree with you there, but I will say that there is a time when too much of something becomes a bad thing, and I believe that sums up my stance on that issue.
No no, see, that was a joke. Out of all those things, the only thing he was denying was that he's imbred. He was being somewhat sarcastic...umm... Don't worry about it, you'll get it tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skogs
"Using the terms redneck warmongors and all of that junk is simply a policial correctness issue. We don't want to offend the racist southern states, so we wont even bring up the issue, when in fact there might be a major racism issue more-so there than the cities along the coast.
...
Bush is white and from the south, he started a war. By someone's definition that makes him just that -- a redneck warmongor."
"Don't want to offend the racist southern states"? So you think all the Southern states are racist? It's not a political correctness issue, it's an ignorance issue. No free-thinking intelligent person would call Bush a "redneck warmonger". Do people call Clinton a "hillbilly hippie"? Hell, he was from Arkansas, and he was a coward when it came to foreign relations and military (not to mention he smoked weed), and those weren't even the start of his problems, so by some people's definitions, that would be right, wouldn't it?
By the way, genius, not every white person from the South is a redneck. And PC is generally a liberal subject--most conservatives don't care if they're politically correct or not, or who they offend, and most liberals don't either, as long as nobody offends them. Labeling all Southerners as racists and rednecks though, that's ridiculously ignorant.
And Bush didn't "start a war". He led the U.S. to continue the war that was already being fought against us. It's called the War on Terror, you should read up on it sometime. Even so, the creation of a war does not mean that everybody who supports it is a "warmonger". If it does, then I'm proud to be one of those "bloodthirsty redneck warmongers" that you have so much against.
The war on terror is a joke. You can't fight terrorism with war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I don't think all southern states are racist. I Definitely don't think that, despite what I have said. I'm not that ignorant. In certain areas there is some heavy racism still however, texas specifically. If you don't think so, then you're wrong. I've known some people from texas who have told me about the racism in the areas they lived in. I don't think everyone in texas is white, either. Also, I never said I had any stance on the war, I was giving an example, although you probably implied I was liberal from my examples, but actually, I'm neither conservative or liberal. I dont' want to get into a political debate. I don't appreciate you accusing me of ignorance and then insulting me.
The traditional definition of a redneck is a poor, uneducated white person usualy living in the country side in the southern US. Used as an insult, it's more of saying you 'act' like such, and that is more of a matter of opinion, so you can think whatever the heck you want for your definition. A dictionary doesn't define a word, people do.
I never even said that if you support the war you're a warmongor. In fact, I take that whole statement as completely radical, and probably not the best example, since I pissed you off just by using it. I "labeled" southerners as racist to get a point across on ust that subject, labeling. Political correstness has all to do with labeling. I kind of went off on a tangent.
I like how you used genius sarcastically, as if I was an idiot. I know you enjoy ripping my arguements to shreds. I was never trying to offend you, yet you explode with such hatred. You have some serious anger issues.
Dont get Sasquatch Started. He's gonna try and make his agenda and his beliefs seem like its the absolute truth. He cant debate without making snide remarks and insults about people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwelenguchenkus
Anywayz, that war on terror is a joke. There was never a war against us. The thing about america is, although 9/11 was a terrible thing, we only got a little taste of what the world goes through ALL THE TIME. This wasnt even the first time america has had a terrorism attack. They tried to blow up the WTC back in 1993/94. Terrorism isnt something new. Its just new to us. We as americans have a silly way of thinking that we are safe in america from outside forces. Its a foolish belief, but its the only one we know because thats all we've had. There is no way to fight an army that has no country or face. Who do we fight? Do we only fight arabs to fight terrorism? What about terrorist who come from white countries? What about terrorist that come from black countries? What about jewish Terrorist? This war on terror is a complete joke and a waste of money. I supported bush when he wanted to go after Osama. That was justified, but when he wanted to go into Iraq, it didnt make since. Saddam was a bad person but come on. He wasn't a Direct treat to america. I dont want to even here that right-wing BS about how he was. He wasnt. Not only that, when his arguement about WMD's in iraq fell through, he started sprouting off crap about fighting for iraqi freedom. Why the hell is that our job? If those iraqi's had wanted saddam out, they should have (and eventually would have) ousted his regiem themselves. Why should we be even forcing democracy in the middle east. Who cares. Thats another problem with america. We wanted to be separate from england so that we could be free to do what we please, and yet, we tell the rest of the world they have to be a democracy. Cause its the "right" thing to be. SAys who? Thats why arab countries hate us. We are a land of hypocracies. Our government says one thing, then does another. The sad thing is, People are so concerned now about the labels we call ourselves that we either have to be Liberal or concervative. So its come down to either being agaisnt the war or for the war, without either side taking a look at whats really going on here. We are being LIED to day in and day out by our government and no one is making a big deal about it.
Now Sasquatch, in know your gonna sprout off to me some crap about you being in the Army so you presumed to know so much more than everybody else, but who cares. The keep the military in the dark just as much as the public. Your job is to fight the war and follow orders. So unless your pretty high up in rank, you dont know much more than anybody else does. Oh, thank you for serving the country though.( not sarcastic). Somebody has to protect iraqi freedom and stop terrorism ( sarcastic)
I think all southern states are predominantly populated by racist bastards, save Florida maybe,. Why? Because nearly all the southerners I encounter online and all the people I encounter where I live has the "I hate niggers and speks" attitude. To say every last person in a particular state is racist is silly though. Oklahoma is extremely racist though, in it's government too. They pay Native American students money for getting A's in school here. It's a well known fact that the south is predominantly racist...and if you say it isn't, you've either never spent time here, or you fail to walk outside your house much.
I'm pretty much convinced that I'm the only one in this state who isn't racist though.
I'm with you Big D, Reagen didn't defeat Communism, he happened to be in the right place at the right time.
I don't see that as stereo typing. Now if you saw a random woman and just assumed that they were a Democrat then that would be stereo typing.Quote:
A lot of republicans ARE white, older, males. Why!? Don't want to accept it? it's true. more woman are democratic than men. Minorities are more democratic than whites. oh noes, stereotyping. No, facts.
When he was in office? Yeah right... :rolleye2Quote:
(not to mention he smoked weed)
the war on terror doesn't even exist. It's just a political tool. Nothing more, nothing less.Quote:
The war on terror is a joke.
I don't feel that Sasquatch has anger issues. I am the same way. If someone pisses me off, I am prone to respond rudely. I would venture to guess that you do the same from time to time. We all do.Quote:
I was never trying to offend you, yet you explode with such hatred. You have some serious anger issues.
Saying that "all presidents have been white males" is not a generalization. If I were to say "All presidents will always be white males" now THAT is a generalization.Quote:
like the white male president I was talking about (but that's an extreme example). You can only give generalizations.
There was no reason for this comment. It was just rude. Would you have said the same thing about me, or DMKA, or Shadow Nexus? I don't think so. The three of us (in my opinion) can be quite rude from time to time. The difference is you agree with us.Quote:
Dont get Sasquatch Started. He's gonna try and make his agenda and his beliefs seem like its the absolute truth. He cant debate without making snide remarks and insults about people.
It makes sense if you realize that the war on terror is just a tool.Quote:
That was justified, but when he wanted to go into Iraq, it didnt make since.
It's no secret. Politicians need excuses to go to war. This was his.Quote:
he started sprouting off crap about fighting for iraqi freedom. Why the hell is that our job?
I have actually heard some say that it was largely due to John Paul II that communism failed. It would make sense, seeing as how people in that region are Catholic, and thier religion was being supprest by the Soviets. I cannot comment more on this, because that's as far as I know.Quote:
I'm with you Big D, Reagen didn't defeat Communism, he happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Oh, there's a lot today... But I did notice that nik0tine defended me. Twice. Wow.
I wouldn't say at all that I have any "anger problems", nor did I "explode with such hatred". I tried to make a calm, collected, intelligent reply, as I usually do. Now, I'm a smartass, and I made some sarcastic comments, but if you took my post as insulting your ignorance, that's upon you.
"The traditional definition of a redneck is a poor, uneducated white person usualy living in the country side in the southern US. Used as an insult..."
First off, that's your definition of a redneck. Some others may disagree with that. Secondly, some people take being called "redneck" not as an insult, but as a compliment, because it means that they stand out from the people around them--and when they dislike the ideals of the people around them, some people liked to be labeled as somebody who stands apart from them. If I was surrounded by yuppies, I would be proud to be called a redneck, just as if I was surrounded by white supremacists, I would be proud to be called a "nigger lover"--these terms are used as insults by those groups, but in some contexts can be taken (and perhaps should be taken) as compliments.
"I don't think all southern states are racist....In certain areas there is some heavy racism still however, texas specifically. If you don't think so, then you're wrong......I don't appreciate you accusing me of ignorance and then insulting me."
Your made a reference to "the racist southern states", that's a pretty ignorant thing to say. I have lived in the South, and I saw as much racism against minorities as I did against white people. "If you don't think so, then you're wrong." And, mind you, I don't believe I have ever made a direct insult towards you. (EDIT: Damn. Sorry. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings.)
"Dont get Sasquatch Started. He's gonna try and make his agenda and his beliefs seem like its the absolute truth."
Should I debate by trying to make my beliefs look like they're wrong? Interesting strategy. (Reminds me of Dodgeball..."It looks like Average Joe's is forfeiting..." "That's an interestering strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off.")
"Anywayz, that war on terror is a joke. There was never a war against us."
So, let's see..."war on terror"...implying that terrorism is the enemy... You're saying that we've never had a terrorist attack, or what? Do you not see that there's been a war against us, and against everything Western and Capitalist and Jewish and Christian, for centuries? 11 September was a major blow that got America's attention, and helped raise American support against terrorism.
"Who do we fight? Do we only fight arabs to fight terrorism? What about terrorist who come from white countries? What about terrorist that come from black countries? What about jewish Terrorist?"
How many Jewish terrorists have you heard of? How many black terrorists, or white terrorists? There's Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kazinski, Eric Rudolph (although he's somewhat of a different situation, as I believe the Olympic Park bombing was simply pinned on him as a matter of convenience), and those people have been dealt with. The simple fact is, whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not, the vast majority of people willing to commit terrorist acts against America are Arabs.
"Not only that, when his arguement about WMD's in iraq fell through, he started sprouting off crap about fighting for iraqi freedom. Why the hell is that our job? If those iraqi's had wanted saddam out, they should have (and eventually would have) ousted his regiem themselves."
Ah...that's why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the beginning. Why is it our job? Who's job is it? It's the UN's job, but they have quite a history in failing miserably, and they weren't about to do anything about Iraq (mainly because of France and Germany, which were both profiting from under-the-table illegal trade with Saddam). So, if the UN doesn't do it, does that mean it just shouldn't be done, or should somebody else pick up the torch? I agree, it's not America's job to police the world. It's the UN's job--but since the UN doesn't do their job, it's America's responsibility as a superpower and a country which prides itself on its moral convictions to do what should be done. And as for the Iraqi people ousting Saddam...they already tried that. More than once, I believe, but the most recent was after the Persian Gulf War. All resistance against Saddam's regime was brutally crushed. Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands slaughtered, thousands tortured and executed, some buried in mass graves, some left to rot in the streets they died in.
"Now Sasquatch, in know your gonna sprout off to me some crap about you being in the Army so you presumed to know so much more than everybody else, but who cares...Oh, thank you for serving the country though.( not sarcastic). Somebody has to protect iraqi freedom and stop terrorism ( sarcastic)"
Actually, having been there, logic would tell that I know a bit more about the situation than somebody who has only gotten their information from cable news. I can tell you that there's a lot that happens--good and bad--that doesn't get relayed back and played on CNN. If you disagree with that, you are free to, but with that having been said, you don't know any better. Seeing as The Redneck was in Korea a few years ago, at the time, I'm sure he knew more about the situation there than most of the rest of us did. And if you were sincere in it, I would appreciate the gratitude. We all do.
As for Reagan, he did contribute greatly to the fall of the Soviet Union. One of the ways he did so was, basically, by inventing a lie (missile defense) and outspending them. Not to say that he was the primary cause leading up to it, but he did play an important role.
And for perhaps what is the first time, I didn't find anything in nik0tine's post that would warrant a reply from me. Except that, perhaps, the Clinton-weed thing didn't mean to imply while in office, just that he had at least once before, which would go along with the "hippie" label. And that, well...everytime I see your avatar, nik0tine, I think you're a lady. I dunno. You debate like a lady would, too, for the most part.
Yes, i know all of this. But that is exactly what im talking about when i talk of America's hypocracy. We only wanted to do something about terrorism when it hit us. Had 9/11 never happened, we wouldnt have given one thought about terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
[q=Sasquatch]
How many Jewish terrorists have you heard of? How many black terrorists, or white terrorists? There's Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kazinski, Eric Rudolph (although he's somewhat of a different situation, as I believe the Olympic Park bombing was simply pinned on him as a matter of convenience), and those people have been dealt with. The simple fact is, whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not, the vast majority of people willing to commit terrorist acts against America are Arabs.[/q]
Well that would depend on what you describe as a terrorist act. Maybe they are the vast majority, but they are not the ONLY ones commiting terrorist acts. my point was, a terrorist could be anybody. Therefore taking the "War on Terrorism" to the middle east and no where else is stupid because terrorism has no country.
[q=Sasquatch]
Ah...that's why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the beginning. Why is it our job? Who's job is it? It's the UN's job, but they have quite a history in failing miserably, and they weren't about to do anything about Iraq (mainly because of France and Germany, which were both profiting from under-the-table illegal trade with Saddam). So, if the UN doesn't do it, does that mean it just shouldn't be done, or should somebody else pick up the torch? I agree, it's not America's job to police the world. It's the UN's job--but since the UN doesn't do their job, it's America's responsibility as a superpower and a country which prides itself on its moral convictions to do what should be done. And as for the Iraqi people ousting Saddam...they already tried that. More than once, I believe, but the most recent was after the Persian Gulf War. All resistance against Saddam's regime was brutally crushed. Tens, maybe hundreds of thousands slaughtered, thousands tortured and executed, some buried in mass graves, some left to rot in the streets they died in.
[/q]
You know what, this would all be valid except for one small thing. Our government doesnt care about the iraqi's really. Its just that, Bush has a reason to want to be in iraq. Oil. Now, the same types of Atrocities that you just mentioned went on in African countries for years and America never stepped in once. If our government cares so much about that type of stuff, why didnt it do something about that? Why does it let those african countries still suffer. You could label those people who terrorize its citizens terrorist. But america wont do a damn thing about it there. Why? Cause they get nothing out of helping those countries.
Also, why does our moral convictions have to be FORCED on a nation that is run differently than ours? What makes us right and makes them wrong?
Well, you most certainly piss me off sometimes. I know that I piss you off sometimes. However, just because we dissagree doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up for each other when we need it. How on Earth can I help make this world a better place if I can't even get past our political differences? We're all human, and we should all look out for each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Was that an insult? It sure sounds like one...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Also, I don't see why what I posted did not warrent a reply. It's a simple fact that this war was waged for purposes of power, as all wars are. Now, I must say that good things have come out of this war, but the intent was never to help people. I believe that you are there with the intent to help people, and I believe that in your heart, your intentions are, for the most part, good. However, the politicians who sent you there have a different agenda. It makes no sense to believe that a politicians would spend billions of dollars on a war with the intent to help people. It just doesn't add up, sorry. If you think it does, I would be glad to hear your rebuttal.
I guess whether or not you see the war on terror to solely exist as an excuse to war is up to you. Maybe it doesn't, but I have my doubts. However, to deny the fact that it was used as a reason to go to war is undeniable.
What America is doing isn't necessarily right. However, what Saddam was doing was most definetly WRONG. However, that still doesn't give us the right to overthrow him, at least not for the reasons that we did. If it was REALLY about Saddam we could have had him and his kids assasinated, and we could have incited a revolution in Iraq, and then supplied the rebels with arms.Quote:
Also, why does our moral convictions have to be FORCED on a nation that is run differently than ours? What makes us right and makes them wrong?
I couldn't agree more. I don't exactly agree with many political arguements that Sasquatch has, but I'm not going to counter every arguement he has even if I agree with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
I also agree that there's probably something seriously wrong with that white male president's example I gave, and that there was a serious misunderstanding on the racism issue. I didn't intend to give the impression I thought EVERYONE was racist in the south, I was actually giving an example of a generalization to make a point about something offtopic which I can hardly remember at this point.
I'm sure everyone was rolling with laughter after that 'joke'. I didn't see anything wrong with double posting, considering I was replying to two seperate people, one response which I didn't even see until after I had posted the first time. I guess that makes me a moron. Oh whoops, you were just joking!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
God, that was hilarious.
EDIT: I put both posts together into one post, to prevent being called a moron again.
SKEET SKEET SKEET
Edit by D: Don't spam in a serious topic please.
Damn y'all, lighten up. nik0tine, I in no way meant that as an insult. Gwel, I apologize for that comment, and I'll go back and edit it back out. I thought it was amuzing, but apparently you take offense to it. I don't want to hurt your feelings.
"Yes, i know all of this. But that is exactly what im talking about when i talk of America's hypocracy. We only wanted to do something about terrorism when it hit us. Had 9/11 never happened, we wouldnt have given one thought about terrorism."
What's your point? How is that hypocritical? America didn't realize the threat until they were attacked. And? If we had never had a terrorist attack against us, what would be our reasoning for fighting a war against terrorism? We would have no standing, and no support.
"Well that would depend on what you describe as a terrorist act. Maybe they are the vast majority, but they are not the ONLY ones commiting terrorist acts. my point was, a terrorist could be anybody. Therefore taking the "War on Terrorism" to the middle east and no where else is stupid because terrorism has no country."
Again I ask, how many terrorists--other than the ones I've already pointed out--have you heard of that weren't Arab? Alright, there was the French guy that got caught trying to light a fuse to his shoe. And maybe the people in Japan that released the nerve agent into the subway. Who else? The 9/11 hijackers? All of 'em? Arab. The Madrid train bombers? Arab. And obviously those terrorists in the Middle East would mostly be of Middle Eastern heritage. You're right, terrorism has no country. But there's no point in going from door to door looking for poeple that we know are in another state, you get the drift?
"You know what, this would all be valid except for one small thing. Our government doesnt care about the iraqi's really. Its just that, Bush has a reason to want to be in iraq. Oil...Also, why does our moral convictions have to be FORCED on a nation that is run differently than ours? What makes us right and makes them wrong?"
Now you can use the "war for oil" crap all you want, I won't even bother responding to such an ignorant statement. It's been shown time and time again that this war is not about oil, in fact the U.S. is getting no more oil now from Iraq than it was a few years ago. And why do we have to "force" our moral convictions on another nation? BECAUSE SADDAM WAS SLAUGHTERING AND TORTURING HIS OWN PEOPLE! Is that so hard to understand? And there's nothing they could do about it. It's not like we're trying to convert them all to Christianity, we're ousting a cruel dictator and putting in somebody that will better serve the interests of the people--and, it's said, no doubt will also better serve the interests of the United States, or the Western World in general.
nik0tine, again, I didn't mean offense. And I realized that nothing in your post warranted a reply from be because it was mainly about the war on terror, which we obviously have to very differing opinions of, and it wouldn't do any good.
Gwel, you okay buddy? You need a hug? C'mere and get a hug. Come on.