Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 58 of 58

Thread: "You're a fag!" A discourse upon liberal debate

  1. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch
    "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.
    Nice way to edit out the bulk of that paragraph. Once again, if america is so righteous, why doesnt it help the African countries who have dictators who are as bad as Saddam was? And in those countries their leaders are as you so nicely put it, "SLAUGHTERING AND TORTURING HIS OWN PEOPLE!". Yet...We do nothin there. why? But you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence:

    "...and, it's said, no doubt will also better serve the interests of the United States, or the Western World in general."


    We have no reason to really want to see a free iraq. It doesnt benifit us that iraq be free. Unless...there was something in it for us. The oil is there, and that DOES benifit Bush's agenda. Sas, you gotta be able to come up with a better reason for why we are really in iraq. Its obvious that the American government doesnt give a damn about freedom around the world. So what other reason is there to be in iraq.

    [q=Sasquatch]
    "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.[/q]

    I see that you are one of those people that dont care about anything until it affects you. Terrorism has been going on forever. No one ever thought about fighting a war against terrorism until now. its hypocritical because terrorism has been going on for forever and we NEVER thought to do anything about it. Your right though, there would have been no support. Why? Because the American people dont give a damn what happens outside of america. But when it happened to us, now the world is so much more unsafe and we gotta go off and fight a war on false pretences. Thats why its hypocritical.

  2. #47
    ...you hot, salty nut! Recognized Member fire_of_avalon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    17,442
    Blog Entries
    34
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Hi guys.

    First of all, this thread has gone WAY off topic. This isn't about the Bush Administration or about how much you hate rednecks or southerners, nor is it about the war in Iraq or former President Lincoln. This thread is about the use of homosexuality as a poor tactic for debate, and how The Redneck feels it has been used by liberals throughout the years (prior to the conversion to political correctness) as an attack. My point? This is the topic, stay on it.

    Secondly, there are some of you who are indirectly trolling/flaming and you KNOW who you are. Because it's indirect and I'm not about to get into a giant argument about why I edited your posts, my hands are tied on the issue. But stop it, or someone will have to 1) Delete your posts or 2) Close the thread all together.

    Finally, keep all your opinions about your fellow members to yourself. If you think I'm a drooling idiot, that's perfectly alright, but saying so in the thread is NOT. Cut it out.

    Basically, everybody use your common sense. Please.

    Signature by rubah. I think.

  3. #48

    Default

    Nice way to edit out the bulk of that paragraph. Once again, if america is so righteous, why doesnt it help the African countries who have dictators who are as bad as Saddam was? And in those countries their leaders are as you so nicely put it, "SLAUGHTERING AND TORTURING HIS OWN PEOPLE!". Yet...We do nothin there. why? But you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence:

    "...and, it's said, no doubt will also better serve the interests of the United States, or the Western World in general."


    We have no reason to really want to see a free iraq. It doesnt benifit us that iraq be free. Unless...there was something in it for us. The oil is there, and that DOES benifit Bush's agenda. Sas, you gotta be able to come up with a better reason for why we are really in iraq. Its obvious that the American government doesnt give a damn about freedom around the world. So what other reason is there to be in iraq.
    Who's interest should America look out for? The French? The Japanese? Zimbabwe? I agree that we should try to encourage freedom and democracy in places other than the ME, but you are asking America to do things that you would not ask of any other country. Every country acts in its own best interest.

    Anyway, the only time I've actually heard a person declare that a person opposed to them was gay was a preacher who was trying to convince people that evolution was false. One of the things he said was that evolutionists promote evolution because they are homosexual and therefore they don't want to believe in God because he says gayness is wrong. I've never heard a liberal say something like that, because for the most part liberals support gay rights.

  4. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
    Nice way to edit out the bulk of that paragraph. Once again, if america is so righteous, why doesnt it help the African countries who have dictators who are as bad as Saddam was? And in those countries their leaders are as you so nicely put it, "SLAUGHTERING AND TORTURING HIS OWN PEOPLE!". Yet...We do nothin there. why? But you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence:

    "...and, it's said, no doubt will also better serve the interests of the United States, or the Western World in general."


    We have no reason to really want to see a free iraq. It doesnt benifit us that iraq be free. Unless...there was something in it for us. The oil is there, and that DOES benifit Bush's agenda. Sas, you gotta be able to come up with a better reason for why we are really in iraq. Its obvious that the American government doesnt give a damn about freedom around the world. So what other reason is there to be in iraq.
    Who's interest should America look out for? The French? The Japanese? Zimbabwe? I agree that we should try to encourage freedom and democracy in places other than the ME, but you are asking America to do things that you would not ask of any other country. Every country acts in its own best interest.



    no no no no no. Im not asking america to do anything but to live up to what it says. I know that every country does things in its own interest. I have no problem with that. But, if you saying that your doing this for the world and your really just lying to your own people and blatantly showing it and just really pushing your own personal agenda , then, i have a problem with it.

  5. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skogs
    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!
    I couldn't agree with you more. Both Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of labeling and stereotyping their political opponents. Furthermore, when we disagree with someone else's position on an issue, it is important to remember to attack their position rather than their person.

    Consider this: Are you likely to listen to another person's argument if they begin by personally insulting you? On the other hand, would you be more likely to listen if they first acknowledge your position, and then explain the points on which they disagree?

    Case in point: Debate will get us nowhere unless we look beyond labels such as "liberal" or "conservative"; "Democrat" or "Republican", and focus on the issue at hand. The moment you personally attack another person, you may as well throw the towel in, as you have lost all hope of convincing them to accept your position.

    Persuasion is only effective if you are able to first understand the other person's viewpoint and why they hold their position. Compromise is also effective--if you are on the same page, and you are willing to concede part of your argument, they will probably be willing to do the same.
    The little purple man with the magical staff...

    CHECK OUT MY FF1 PC REMAKE--GET IT HERE!!

  6. #51
    Gamecrafter Recognized Member Azure Chrysanthemum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    In the Chrysanthemum garden
    Posts
    11,798

    FFXIV Character

    Kazane Shiba (Adamantoise)
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mihalis

    I couldn't agree with you more. Both Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of labeling and stereotyping their political opponents. Furthermore, when we disagree with someone else's position on an issue, it is important to remember to attack their position rather than their person.

    Consider this: Are you likely to listen to another person's argument if they begin by personally insulting you? On the other hand, would you be more likely to listen if they first acknowledge your position, and then explain the points on which they disagree?

    Case in point: Debate will get us nowhere unless we look beyond labels such as "liberal" or "conservative"; "Democrat" or "Republican", and focus on the issue at hand. The moment you personally attack another person, you may as well throw the towel in, as you have lost all hope of convincing them to accept your position.

    Persuasion is only effective if you are able to first understand the other person's viewpoint and why they hold their position. Compromise is also effective--if you are on the same page, and you are willing to concede part of your argument, they will probably be willing to do the same.
    Well said, I quite agree. Bravo.

  7. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dahlonega, GA (up in the mountains)
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Few things....

    First, Sasquatch--
    There's one small problem--the missile defense "lie" actually works--or at least has so far in 5 out of 6 tests. In this age of terrorism when we have more to worry about from truck-bombs than from ICBMs it's not nearly as useful as it was when it was us vs. the Communists, but it's up there now.

    And second, the shoebomber "Richard Colson Ried" was known to French authorities as Tariq Raja, and at the time he tried to bomb a plane he answered to Abdel Rahim. Likewise, 19 out of the 20 men on the FBI's Most Wanted List are Arabic, and half answer to "Mohammed".

    About McCarthy--those attacking him need to be aware of the Venona Project, which I linked to in my first post. The short version--in 1943, we were scared that there would be another Hitler-Stalin pact; Russia was suffering severely from the war, even if they were winning, and Germany was fighting a two-front war, which is nearly always bad. If such a pact had succeeded, then the Nazis may very well have taken over all of Europe and used it as a springboard to Africa and eventually the United States. Therefore, we wanted to know as much about it as we possibly could, and thus the Army Special Branch started working on breaking the Soviet Code. We haven't yet decoded them all, but what we have decoded (declassified in 1995) proves something very important: McCarthy's "innocent victims" were indeed Soviet spies.

    The Hollywood Blacklisting (oh, the shame that peple wouldn't hire screenwriters supporting a Communist Empire and refusing to tell the truth in court--you wanna see some blacklisting, try being a conservative actor. Humphrey Bogart flew to Washington DC to support them and later called the trip "Ill-advised, even foolish." Lauren Bacall said "We were so naive it was ridiculous.") had nothing to do with McCarthy. Senator McCarthy took up the anti-Communist cause in his 1950 speech in Wheeling, West Virginia--the "HollyWood Ten" were called before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947.

    The gay-baiting of Whittaker Chambers was noted in the official deposition of Alger Hiss, Soviet spy. It can also be found in Allen Weinsten's report on the matter, Perjury.

    Among the more obvious insinuations, playwright Lillian Hellman referred to McCarthy and his two assistants, Roy Cohn and David Schine (all unmarried men, at the time) as "Bonnie, Bonnie, and Clyde". Hank Greenspun, publisher of the Las Vegas Sun] called McCarthy a "disreputable pervert", and in their final payback the New York Times used Cohn's obituary to "out" him as a homosexual.

    Likewise, among the most famous gay-baiting of Hoover was the musical comedy written by Harry Shearer and Tom Leopold, J. Edgar!, from the Aspen Comedy Arts Festival in 2003 (the same folks that gave their "Freedom of Speech Award" to Micheal Moore two years in a row.).


    As for Reagan's defeat of communism, I'm going to put that to a new thread.

  8. #53

    Default

    Liberalism, Conservatism, individuals are relativly good people that want what's best.

    But when they get in large numbers God help us. The views become peverted and disgusting.

    Take homosexuality as you meationed for example. It's great that we live in a country where people want to see these misfits have equal rights because they were born differantly, as well as they should, homosexuals are people too.

    But that's not enough, they have to shove it down our throat every five moments, they have to expose our children to it constantly with hidden and sometimes blatant messages, they have to have annual parades, possibly even a "gay-day", all this attention and commercialism cannot POSSIBLY allow a homosexual to appear just like Joe Dude down the street And Lord forgive me if I say something you interput wrong or don't much like me saying about them..

    So then I look to conservatives, who believe in tradition and following the values of the Bible. This seems good, untill they condemn poor gays and either ignore them completely, treat them like crap, or do thier best to "re-habilate" them like thier some kind of lunatic. It's horrible.

    The problem lies not in your cause or your actions but you damn gluttony. It's never enough for you, and that's why all your plans fail. Just like super villains in comic-books, if they were just happy and celebrated the success they got and didn't aim for something ten times bigger they'd be alot better off.

  9. #54
    Proudly Loathsome ;) DMKA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    11,306

    FFXIV Character

    Efes Ephesus (Adamantoise)

    Default

    Oh, you don't know how great you made me feel with that last post Harvest Moon!

    I agree with you 100%. I'm all for gays just being left alone and treated as people. But as it is with certain "femenists" and "black rights activists" and other people of this form, they get "equality" and "special treatment" mixed up. You say you want "equality", so how do you try to achieve it? By dancing around out in the street waving pink flags in leather boytoy bondage gear to it's raining men? Ummm....wrong answer...

    I think gays getting married and going out to dance together and whatever is cool. But the pride parades and the basic selling of homosexuality as it is currently, or so it seems (Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, anyone?), it's rediculous. Gays are people too, but there's absolutely no reason to throw your sexuality in everyone's faces like that and then turn around and say "OMG HOMOPHOBE!" when someone says something about it.

  10. #55
    Banned Sasquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    The Seventh Circle of Hell
    Posts
    1,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DMKA
    Oh, you don't know how great you made me feel with that last post Harvest Moon!

    I agree with you 100%. I'm all for gays just being left alone and treated as people. But as it is with certain "femenists" and "black rights activists" and other people of this form, they get "equality" and "special treatment" mixed up. You say you want "equality", so how do you try to achieve it? By dancing around out in the street waving pink flags in leather boytoy bondage gear to it's raining men? Ummm....wrong answer...

    I think gays getting married and going out to dance together and whatever is cool. But the pride parades and the basic selling of homosexuality as it is currently, or so it seems (Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, anyone?), it's rediculous. Gays are people too, but there's absolutely no reason to throw your sexuality in everyone's faces like that and then turn around and say "OMG HOMOPHOBE!" when someone says something about it.
    DMKA, I don't think I've ever agreed with anything you've said more than I agreed with that post. (Actually, I don't know if I've ever agreed with anything else you've said...but I'm sure there's been something.) Anyway, well said. And you even mentioned the "fight for equality" involving black people, too.

  11. #56
    Banned nik0tine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dalmasca!
    Posts
    12,133

    Default

    I have to agree with harvest moon here. I think i'll post more later when I can articulate what I am thinking better.

  12. #57
    Banned lordblazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    oklahoma city,OK
    Posts
    1,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AkiraMakie
    Quote Originally Posted by Gwelenguchenkus
    The war on terror is a joke. You can't fight terrorism with war.

    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.


    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)
    yeah my opinion on this would probaly get me banned.Like by saying Bush preyed on the fears of americans what group which im not saying but if oyur sas then you know what im talking about and if your akira then you know what im talking about and if you watched bowling for Colubime then you know what im talking about.When the OKC bombing happened man i remember that.We were in class and we were saying the pledge of allegiance then booom the whole building jsut started to shake and there was a load sound.That classified as a terrorist attack yeah Tuesday was its anniversary.

  13. #58

    Default

    I was, am, and will probably always be against the war. Those Middle-Eastern people are smurfing crazy, I don't think it's a good idea for us to be messing with them unless we want to expose our people to biological warfare and confusing battles/alliances..

    Nor do I believe terrorism is something you could fight, that's like saying "I declare war on evil!"

    However Saddam Hussein WAS an asshole, so i'm not heart-broken over it.

    Despite how I know this is all a mass conspiracy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •