|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Wingnuts Praying for Obama's Death | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2432 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
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: That's it in a nutshell. - Oni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024