Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wingnuts Praying for Obama's Death
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 61 of 124 (548538)
02-28-2010 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by AZPaul3
02-28-2010 12:29 AM


Re: Nutjob = Wingnut
By younger, you mean....what age exactly?

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 02-28-2010 12:29 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by AZPaul3, posted 02-28-2010 12:52 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 62 of 124 (548540)
02-28-2010 12:49 AM


How about the topic theme as expressed in message 1?
And how about messages with relevant substance?
And be nice.
Adminnemooseus
"I don't do profanity, I do do suspensions"
No replies to this message. No "doo-doo" jokes.

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 63 of 124 (548541)
02-28-2010 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by hooah212002
02-28-2010 12:42 AM


Re: Nutjob = Wingnut
Younger than me, of course. When one gets my age one can 'hear' the youth in the presentation. That's my excuse anyway.
Don't ask.
ABE: As admin requests. I be done.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by hooah212002, posted 02-28-2010 12:42 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 124 (548568)
02-28-2010 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by AZPaul3
02-28-2010 12:29 AM


Re: Nutjob = Wingnut
In a forum like this, even in the Coffee House, it should be sparingly used and only when no other fucking syntax would suffice..... Since this is far off-topic fuck it.
I fucking lol'd

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 02-28-2010 12:29 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 65 of 124 (548570)
02-28-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by AZPaul3
02-28-2010 12:29 AM


Re: Nutjob = Wingnut
AZPaul3 writes:
Profanity has its uses in conversation to emphasize specific points and to convey deep emotions.
Hi AZPaul. There was no valid point to even enphasize, as I showed to be the case. It was hate rant all the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 02-28-2010 12:29 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


(1)
Message 66 of 124 (548734)
03-01-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by dronestar
02-26-2010 9:29 AM


Re: Yeah, truly sad
Hey Dronester.
It seems you have adjusted your position regarding Bush Jr.
Not really, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
What you did do was bring to the fore what I (like most people less angry than you) already know but prefer to move past. What good does it do?
And just so you know, this is simply a reply to your last post, and not an incitement for more argument. As far as I'm concerned, it's a moot point: we agree in this respect, if not with the same intensity. If you're incredulous that I don't share your incendiary zeal regarding these atrocities, then I'm afraid I've disappointed you. Oh well. You can't please everyone all the time.
Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dronestar, posted 02-26-2010 9:29 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dronestar, posted 03-01-2010 1:05 PM Apothecus has seen this message but not replied

dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 67 of 124 (548739)
03-01-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Apothecus
03-01-2010 10:57 AM


Re: Yeah, truly sad
Hey Apothecus,
I am off-topic with this, so unless you want to open another thread, it will be my last post in this thread. I will respect the OP hooah212002's message #50 regarding off topic messages.
Your messages are confusing me. It started with:
And I'll be honest: he [Bush Jr.] wasn't that bad of a guy
After me posting Bush Jr. crimeS and atrocitieS that CONTINUE to this day, you seemed to have changed your mind somewhat. Your message #41 was great. It combined elements of personal open honesty, soul-searching and bravery (quite rare on internet forums). You also wrote of Bush Jr.; "...terrible, terrible crimes, committed..." . Your message of 'enlightenment' was well worth me being called a 'judgemental arse'.
It seemed you have adjusted your position on Bush Jr.. (Maybe, just maybe, there was hope for mankind.)
Then you wrote in message # 66:
Not really, but thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Ugh, how disappointing.
But then you conclude with:
As far as I'm concerned, it's a moot point: we agree in this respect, if not with the same intensity.
It seems you are contradictary. You will need to explain how a war criminal who committed 'terrible, terrible crimes' can be 'not that bad of a guy'.
To Hyroglyphx and hooah212002. Yes, you are both absolutely correct, I have a virulent hatred for Bush Jr. & Co. as I do for ALL war criminals. They lied a nation to war and have caused, and CONTINUES to cause, widespread oppression, torture, and death. Over a MILLION civilians including women and children murdered. Bush & Obama policies WILL cause MORE future "terrorist" acts against the USA. Perhaps you, a family member, or friend will be targeted.
And yet it is mind-boggling to me that you think my hating Bush Jr. is irrational/overboard.
My question remains, why don't you/all people hate war criminals as much as I?
Sincerely,
d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Apothecus, posted 03-01-2010 10:57 AM Apothecus has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 68 of 124 (549174)
03-04-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by hooah212002
02-26-2010 10:57 AM


Re: Yeah, truly sad
I get it. You are a disgruntled American. You are a hipster. We all get that. What I don't get though, is why you live in America. If it's so terrible, why don't you move somewhere else?
I don't believe it's "America" the real estate property that he's objecting against, I believe (if I've understood his position) that his objection is against the administration/s that have caused the great global offenses.
He should, as I do, hold a lot of contempt as well for the general public, who BLINDLY elects these officials to office. Continuously.
Why should he leave this country because he objects to the way it is being run by the corrupt, greedy, war-mongering, extreme minority of wealthy industrialist? Who, not only control the media output of information, but also guild public opinion and the way people vote. We don't need this type of opinion silenced.
Or is his opinion that much of a threat to the status quo that it needs to be silenced?
Your disdain for U.S. ways is similar to that of the same people we are blaming for flying planes into the Twin Towers.
What exactly do you mean by "US ways"?
What "ways" are you refering to? Keeping in mind that YOU started a thread about wingnuts IN THE US, from the MAIN religious group, praying for Obama's death the same way Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq...
So what "ways" exactly are specific to the "US" as a whole, that Dronesters opposes, but that you support?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by hooah212002, posted 02-26-2010 10:57 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by dronestar, posted 03-04-2010 4:27 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 77 by hooah212002, posted 03-04-2010 8:22 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 69 of 124 (549176)
03-04-2010 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by dronestar
02-26-2010 9:06 AM


Re: Yeah, truly sad
Hi Dronester,
One minor quibble with your use of the word America.
Keep in mind that "America" the state doesn't act morally or immorally, it is not an abstract entity, which I feel your use of the word America in your posts makes it seem this way.
People are the only moral agents. The representatives of the state act morally or immoral, not America. The reps were elected by the people, not America. So if there is anyone to blame, it begins and ends with individual people - not America.
The issue of morality will always continue untill WE the people refuse to allow the corruption in Washington (which is not going to happen) so it makes no sense to argue what actions are moral or not. If the actions have not taken into consideration the repercussion on the PEOPLE of the country we are at war in, then NO ACTION has a moral basis.
It's just self-righteous bullshit (covering up corruption) under the guise of morality.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by dronestar, posted 02-26-2010 9:06 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2010 3:02 PM onifre has replied
 Message 80 by dronestar, posted 03-05-2010 9:33 AM onifre has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 70 of 124 (549178)
03-04-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by onifre
03-04-2010 2:54 PM


What Do We Mean By Nation X Did Y...?
Wotcha Oni
Keep in mind that "America" the state doesn't act morally or immorally, it is not an abstract entity, which I feel your use of the word America in your posts makes it seem this way.
I dunno whether I disagree with this or not. So I am gonna disagree to see where you take it.
When we say "America did this" or "Europe did that" or "Israel stands for X" what do we mean? Just the government? I am not convinced.
When we use this sort of terminology we do of courrse mean that those in power took certain actions or stated certain beliefs but does it not also require that these actions or beliefs are also advocated by a large section of the grouping in question?
Is it not true to say that "America voted in Obama hoping for change"? Yet that hardly reflects the wishes of the government of the time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by onifre, posted 03-04-2010 2:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 03-04-2010 3:49 PM Straggler has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 71 of 124 (549182)
03-04-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Straggler
03-04-2010 3:02 PM


Re: What Do We Mean By Nation X Did Y...?
Wud up Straggler,
When we use this sort of terminology we do of course mean that those in power took certain actions or stated certain beliefs but does it not also require that these actions or beliefs are also advocated by a large section of the grouping in question?
Well, for one, you could only assert that for democratic states - so, say in N. Korea, this is obviously not the case. So it is not an across the board accurate requirement to have support of the people.
So we focus that assertion only on democratic states.
If, within these democratic states, there are certain systems in place to guild public opinion (as was done with the invasion of Iraq) and, due to this propaganda, the people form their opinion/s on this basis, then sure, you can say "the people supported the Iraq invasion."
But you would also have to be honest and say, "the people didn't have the proper information."
So gov. officials took action and invaded Iraq, with the support of the American public. Yes. That is a fact. But it is also a fact that the people supported (as did Democrats in office, your country, other countries) because they were given false information. So who does the responsibility fall on?
The function of propaganda is to do just that: falsly lead people to an opinion based on limited, or omitted, information. If you can cover-up the ways in which propaganda influences, and is distributed, and create and image of democracy, then you can always shift the blame on the people who voted and supported certain officials.
Is it not true to say that "America voted in Obama hoping for change"?
Well for one, America didn't vote for Obama, the Electoral College did, and not unanimously - although by a wide margin.
Individually, it would be impossible to guess the reason/s (of the many there is to choose from) for why each person voted for Obama - those who actually did anyway.
To attribute the voting of Obama to a popular catch phrase, IMO, is to fall victim to the very system of deliberate propaganda that introduced the catch phrase to begin with.
I guess I'm an optimist in that I believe/hope that people had a much more fact-based reason to vote for Obama than "change."
Because really, a change from what? Bush? Well that was going to happen either way. Other than a change of person, there has been no other change, not only currently in place, but even proposed before the elections. All we had was an empty catch phrase that became a mantra.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2010 3:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2010 5:37 PM onifre has replied

dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 72 of 124 (549184)
03-04-2010 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by onifre
03-04-2010 2:39 PM


Re: Yeah, truly sad
What's happening Oni,
Since hooah212002 has apparently abandoned this thread..., I will respond.
hooah212002 writes:
Your disdain for U.S. ways is similar to that of the same people we are blaming for flying planes into the Twin Towers.
I noted this BS line too. IF hooah212002 responds, he will likely dick around for a dozen posts and then when he's fully out of vapid responses, he will suddenly declare he never specifically meant it the way he wrote it and all along he is "pretty much agreeing" with you. I would like to note however: as a SUPPOSED Bush Jr. OPPONENT, hooah212002 never did condemn Apothecus' statement:
Apothecus writes:
And I'll be honest: he [Bush Jr.] wasn't that bad of a guy
Neither did Hyroglyphx.
Check out Rahvin's post #99 in "WooHoo! More idiots running the gub'ment" about Hyroglyphx, and the term "mindless middle". I think it could be applied to hooah212002 too. Rahvin is spot on.
I see your followup message #69, I will respond tomorrow,
cheerio,
d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by onifre, posted 03-04-2010 2:39 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Apothecus, posted 03-04-2010 5:52 PM dronestar has replied
 Message 78 by hooah212002, posted 03-04-2010 8:28 PM dronestar has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 124 (549186)
03-04-2010 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by onifre
03-04-2010 3:49 PM


Re: What Do We Mean By Nation X Did Y...?
Fair enough. I am not really gonna argue with any of that. My take on this is that these sorts of statements (nation X believes Y) are highly contextual and can thus be desperately misleading.
When it is said that "Britain supported the Iraq war" this is of course true in the sense of official diplomatic relations, government foreign policy etc. etc. But it remains the case that this was done with a great deal of public opposition. Enough to make the statement that "Britain supported the Iraq war" highly questionable in any sort of non-government capacity.
On the other hand the statement that "Britain opposes further European integration" (for example) is more a statement of public opinion than dependent on particular government policy (which may or may not be in accordance with tha public opinion). The present Labour government has largely avoided pushing relatively pro-Euro policies because of such opinion.
Basically I think that such statements are so open to contextual conflation that they become almost meaningless. Even though I think we all kinda know what is meant when they are used by those without obvious intent to deceive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 03-04-2010 3:49 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by onifre, posted 03-04-2010 6:03 PM Straggler has replied

Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2410 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


(1)
Message 74 of 124 (549188)
03-04-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by dronestar
03-04-2010 4:27 PM


Re: Yeah, truly sad
Hey again dronester,
I thought this topic was dead so I sent you a PM replying to what was your last post before the most recent last post. Here it is, if you didn't realize it was there:
Hey dronester...
Sorry if I gave contradictory impressions... My final post was mostly a clarification of my (admittedly moderate) views. My first description of GW was perhaps too accepting on the surface, but one which probably serves to highlight the type of person I try to be: not especially inciting when it's not either necessary or asked-for. So instead of derailing the topic with what I actually think of GW's administration, actions, etc, my non-committal statement ended up being taken (by you) as something other than the light-hearted joking comment which it was intended to be.
Thus my reply about you not necessarily changing my mind. There wasn't much to change. Again, do I think these were terrible acts? Sure, but don't mistake my lack of singular intensity such as yours as my condoning those actions.
I realize the effects of the bullshit that GW pulled will last for many years. But did you miss my mea culpa in post #36? I as much as admitted that I should have taken a harder stance. Well, then (perhaps undeservedly) I took your reply to that post as douchbag-esque and ridiculous, etc, etc.... However, my point is that, as is my personal moderate MO, 9 times out of 10, I'll choose to take a less agressive standpoint over coming off as a vindictive, angry, albeit informed and educated, online poster.
No offense intended--I think we have more views in common than either of us realizes.
We all pick and fight our battles differently. If you'd like to label me as one of the "mindless middle", that's fine with me. This is just, after all, an anonymous online forum. But I'd still play it the same way.
Have a good one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by dronestar, posted 03-04-2010 4:27 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by dronestar, posted 03-05-2010 10:06 AM Apothecus has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 75 of 124 (549190)
03-04-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Straggler
03-04-2010 5:37 PM


Re: What Do We Mean By Nation X Did Y...?
Basically I think that such statements are so open to contextual conflation that they become almost meaningless. Even though I think we all kinda know what is meant when they are used by those without obvious intent to deceive.
You would think that people would know what it means, but as you can see in this thread both hooah and Hyro suspect Drone of being anti-America, when that is NOT even close to the truth.
But because he throws the word "America" around the way he did, people get personally insulted.
Take the statement: "America voted for Obama and change."
While it is true that America voted for a change to the last admin, and for Obama, the statement does NOT actually represent the real opinion/s of Americans.
For one, again, the Electoral College voted him in. Two, about 70million people voted for Obama (about 60 million voted McCain) that leaves a large amount of people who didn't vote at all.
There's about 310 million people in the US, about 205 million are eligible to vote, about 130 million turned out to vote - about 70 million vote for Obama.
So about 240 million people in the US either didn't vote for Obama, couldn't vote for him or voted against him - So how well does the statement: "America voted for Obama and change" hold up now?
So I agree with your comment:
quote:
these sorts of statements (nation X believes Y) are highly contextual and can thus be desperately misleading.
That's it in a nutshell.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2010 5:37 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2010 6:14 PM onifre has replied
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-07-2010 3:59 PM onifre has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024