Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #81  
Old 02-16-2009, 05:46 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
And I must ask, what is your position on the question you brought up here in this thread?
I just looked through the thread again quickly. I said Obama could have a dialogue with Ahmadinejad on whether the holocaust happened or not, whether an apology was given or not. I noted Obama’s position on the talks follows the example of Chamberlain before WWII and is based on delusion, and that reducing spending on the military weakens the nation, both of which are consistent with his having a 20 year commitment to a church that preached “God D_mn America.” I noted that due to these positions, I was looking for a church that preached, “God have mercy on us all.” I noted that talks without preconditions will make Obama look ridiculous, as the demand for an apology as a Iranian precondition already has. I noted that if he apologizes he will make the USA look ridiculous.

Krahman, really?!?? What do you think my position is? Could you take a guess?
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #82  
Old 02-16-2009, 05:55 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
Whatsleft, do you really believe that the USA would ever agree to deny the existence of Israel, or State that the holocaust never happened…
Ignoring what I have already said on this issue really is another form of a straw man argument. What I said was that if preconditions are not set, so that this issue (and others like it) cannot be used for propaganda and Iran’s image in the world, then America will end up looking ridiculous and weaken itself in the region and the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
As to the comparison with Chamberlain I still see no comparison other than the fact that Chamberlain talked to Hitler and Obama is willing to talk to Ahmadinejad…
Again, you ignore what I said was the comparison. Chamberlain based his approach to Hitler on a misconception of who he was and ended up merely appeasing him. If Obama was realistic about Islam or Iran, he would understand the necessity for preconditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightSquid View Post
Obama has made no agreements and there is no proof that he is not ready for war or that he believes reaching out to Iran will bring any sort of peace.
Again, you change the issue in an effort to create a straw man. But let’s look at what you are saying, as another matter of interest. When we were losing the war in Iraq and a troop surge was proposed, Obama said it would not work and we had to get out immediately. He wanted to surrender. He could not comprehend what a fatal mistake that would have been. The war in Iraq actually was started as a way of dealing with Islamic propaganda. Ben Ladin and others in the Middle East were proclaiming – “America is corrupt; America can be attacked on their homeland; America is weak; America does not have the will to fight.” By putting an army in Iraq, America made all those promoting the propaganda look ridiculous. So the Islamic world was determined to see we were defeated in Iraq. It we had lost, there would have been more attacks in America… but it’s not too late for Obama to screw things up. He let Islam play him on Iraq, and now he wants to do the same with Iran.
 
  #83  
Old 02-16-2009, 11:39 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
So it wasn’t just Chamberlain who was used by Hitler through negotiation. The Vatican also had talks with Hitler and entered into a concordant. It was negotiated by Eugenio Pacelli, later to become Pope Pius XII. Pacelli was a lawyer from a family of lawyers and advisers to Popes. He had a top notch education and moved about in the upper echelons of society.

But Pacelli miscalculated who Hitler was. The concordant he negotiated gave the Pope exclusive control over Catholic churches in Germany in exchange for eliminating the Catholic political party. Hitler knew from history, the Catholic party’s effect on Bismark, that it had to be removed from political influence. And Pacelli did not notice the true import of how Hitler worded in the agreement when Catholics could have meetings – it was ambiguous, and permitted him to eliminate the Catholic Church as soon as it was no longer useful to his purposes or to diminish its influence whenever convenient. Pacelli was not a slouch… but still no match for a deceitful and masterful negotiator.

But that’s how things happen in not assessing correctly who one is dealing with and what are their true objectives. So the Vatican embassy in Berlin ended up giving birthday parties every year for Hitler, even after he died. The Vatican was not able to issue a denunciation of the Jewish genocide. The humiliation and stain on the Roman Catholic Church as a result of deciding to negotiate with Hitler lives on to this day.

When the Germans retreated from Italy, the only thing that saved Pacelli’s life, as Pius XII, was the betrayal of a high level German general, seeking to save his own skin, knowing Germany would lose the war.

Should America have embassy birthday parties for Ahmadenijad? But what if Obama thinks it would be helpful?
 
  #84  
Old 02-16-2009, 01:56 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
I noted that talks without preconditions will make Obama look ridiculous, as the demand for an apology as a Iranian precondition already has.
That still doesn't say what your position is, just talking around it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
Krahman, really?!?? What do you think my position is? Could you take a guess?
Why make anyone have to guess what your position is? And it sounded like your were just trying to keep an open mind on the subject without really addressing it yourself. I know this tactic well. How about you go ahead and tell us, because you still haven't yet.

It's not for me to figure out what you imply, as a debater it is for you to state your positions clearly. I'm not a mystical mind reader -I wouldn't want to know what goes on in the heads of most people.

You know, you don't have to actually state your position if you wish. You can actually keep on implying what it is. But of course, that would be ridicules for you not to state it at this point -at my request.

I'll be waiting...
 
  #85  
Old 02-16-2009, 03:57 PM
rabble's Avatar
rabble rabble is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-24-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,868
iTrader: 0 / 0%
I will address you WhatsLeft. I believe I understand your basic positions.

1. You don't think Obama should apologize for past US actions
which aggrieved the Iranian people because to do so would make the US appear weak and undermine past US efforts to terrorize the world, and especially the 'middle east' into a fearful acceptance of the US contention we can do whatever we want anywhere in the world with impunity, without regard for international law.

2. You don't think Obama should talk to Iran at all until they
A. agree to halt all dual use nuclear activity.
B. accept that Israel has a right systematically oppress the
Palestinian people in violation of over 100 resolutions of the United Nations.

Your reasoning for this is that for Obama to do so before Iran bows before our might would amount to appeasement of the order engaged in by Chamberlin and your 'Pope 'whatever' ' prior to WWII.

Am I correct?
 
  #86  
Old 02-16-2009, 11:48 PM
troublescoot troublescoot is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-09
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
Two days ago Barack Obama gave a television interview to a Muslim cable TV station, in which he said too often the USA has communicated with Islamic nations by dictating instead of listening. He wants to start a discourse with them by listening first, and he wants to begin a dialogue with Iran.

Yesterday, Ahmadinejad said the dialogue with Iran should begin with the USA apologizing for its dark background and criminal acts against Iran, and with the USA withdrawing support for Israel.

What do you think –
Is it smart for the USA to apologize to Iran and to stop supporting Israel?
Apologize, yes -- stop supporting Israel? Soon, but not yet.

The US Government turning a blind eye to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has gone on long enough. That alone should have people questioning the US's support for Israel, but I digress. In order to answer your question, you have to consider the source of the support for either side (are there more Jews in power in the US or Muslims?). What's to gain by kissing the ass of one over the other? These are the real questions that need asking. Ideally, there'd be no choosing of sides but that's completely unrealistic.

Quote:
If Barack does apologize, do you believe then he could organize the community in the Middle East?
No. There's no way in hell people who are raised to believe that killing in the name of religion is not only right but rewarded are going to be swayed into peace talks. Especially when their neighbors are so close. If by some miracle they do reach some kind of stalemate, it will only be a matter of time before that falls through. Eventually, someone will have to win and the winner will go for the next infidel neighbor.

These fundamentalists are like a disease that just wants to spread until there are no more infidels left. At some point, like it or not, they will have to be put in their place or we will die. It's them or us.

Quote:
If Barack does not want to apologize, how should he formulate a smart response?
If I knew that, I'd be in his seat but in general, a polite "no" would do just fine. My wife is Iranian but if it comes down to the USA vs Iran because they don't have the balls to come to a peaceable agreement, I say they deserve a nice reminder of whose in charge.
 
  #87  
Old 02-16-2009, 11:49 PM
troublescoot troublescoot is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-09
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferre View Post
It would sure restore some of the respect for the USA that's totally absent now.

It would show not only the Arab world, but the entire world, that the political leaders in the USA finally admit they have been the bully-on-the-block and have been on the wrong side of justice for too many times in the past decade.

It would show some "change".



..but I doubt it'll ever happen.
But what about stopping support for Israel?

You can't have it both ways.
 
  #88  
Old 02-16-2009, 11:52 PM
troublescoot troublescoot is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-09
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by FocalPoint View Post
No, he should not apologize! Rather he should show good faith and wisdom but not weakness...an apology would, especially in the eyes of the ME, show weakness.
I disagree. I think it's a weakness not to be able to apologize. That's what we've been doing for god knows how long and we're no better off than we were twenty years ago.

I will say that it's time to get some actual answers to the difficult questions to the middle eastern leaders, like "are you going to stop fighting like monkeys or do we have to come in and remind you what happens to naughty nations?"

I say Obama apologizes but demands answers: "So, what's it gonna be, punk?"

Dirty Harry style.
 
  #89  
Old 02-16-2009, 11:54 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
He should formulate a correct response. There's no reason whatsoever to pretend weakness, or pretend to appologize for anything. Simply tell the Iranian kooks - "You are a state sponsor of terror. And one of the only ones left in the world. We will defeat you, and we will do it in one week. Just give us an excuse. There is not a nation on the planet we cannot defeat in one week. Just ask around. Now if you work towards the good of mankind, and abandon your state support of terrorism we will allow you to live. What is your answer?"
 
  #90  
Old 02-17-2009, 12:03 AM
troublescoot troublescoot is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-09
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
He should formulate a correct response. There's no reason whatsoever to pretend weakness, or pretend to appologize for anything. Simply tell the Iranian kooks - "You are a state sponsor of terror. And one of the only ones left in the world. We will defeat you, and we will do it in one week. Just give us an excuse. There is not a nation on the planet we cannot defeat in one week. Just ask around. Now if you work towards the good of mankind, and abandon your state support of terrorism we will allow you to live. What is your answer?"
Yup, I agree. Something along those lines would do just fine.

Although, I remember Obama saying something about not wanting to Police the world. Oh wait, was that George Dubya pre 2000? Damn, I think so.

Hopefully Obama can kick some ass and take some names.
 
  #91  
Old 02-17-2009, 06:21 AM
John Scott's Avatar
John Scott John Scott is offline
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabble View Post
I believe I understand your basic positions.

1. You don't think Obama should apologize for past US actions
which aggrieved the Iranian people because to do so would make the US appear weak and undermine past US efforts to terrorize the world
Where did he say that it would "make the US appear weak and undermine past US efforts to terrorize the world"?
 
  #92  
Old 02-17-2009, 08:05 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Krahmaan,

I started off the thread using satirical elements. To understand what I was doing required having at least a 10th grade course in English, up until the point the post was made specifically noting the satire. Then, less than 10th grade knowledge was necessary, but then I switched away from satire.

I set out a position that Obama wanting talks without preconditions has already been made to look ridiculous by Iran immediately demanding preconditions of withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and demanding an apology for criminal behavior. I noted that unless preconditions are set, Iran will continue to play Obama with similar results. I noted that one of the preconditions has to be no apology.

Early in the thread it was already pointed out, that Clinton already made an apology for past mistakes the USA made in Iran. So demanding another is all the more ridiculous.

Krahman, you quoted one sentence of all the posting I have done, and said that was my position. Really, your responses to me are so ridiculous. But then, how did we start in our posting together. You told me that it was contrary to forum procedure to make a post commenting on graphics software in the PS v PSP thread unless I first posted an example of my work, and the fact that I did not was an indication I was afraid to. Really?!?? If you keep responding to me in such manner as then and now, expect me to keep referring to your replies as completely ridiculous.
 
  #93  
Old 02-17-2009, 08:12 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabble View Post
Am I correct?
What you posted does not in any way relate to anything I said, but it would probably represent the position of Yasser Arafat and Ahmadenijad. It looks more like a restatement of Islamic propaganda. That's what Ahmadenijad would like to use the talks with the USA for, but he can only do so it there are no preconditions.
 
  #94  
Old 02-17-2009, 08:23 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Our country was founded on the basis that there is only one way to respond to the evil of tyranny -- by standing up for what is right, regardless of the cost. England had the most awesome military in the world -- the history of the world -- but we did not care, even though we had an army with no equipment, supplies, training, or discipline. We fought for what was right. We tried negotiation, but it was refused.

It should always be the American position to take the side of what is right. We have agreed to have talks with Iran for many years, but only with preconditions, which they refused. Preconditions means they cannot play a tyrant's game, such as Hitler would have done.

In Iran's case, we should note Ahmadjenidad is a petty tyrant, and we should respond to him the way one does to such evil. To go into talks without preconditions makes such a tyrant look legitimate and lets him play the United States, strengthening his position with Islamic Fundamentalists and with other nations in the world.
 
  #95  
Old 02-17-2009, 10:45 AM
troublescoot troublescoot is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-09
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
Our country was founded on the basis that there is only one way to respond to the evil of tyranny -- by standing up for what is right, regardless of the cost. England had the most awesome military in the world -- the history of the world -- but we did not care, even though we had an army with no equipment, supplies, training, or discipline. We fought for what was right. We tried negotiation, but it was refused.

It should always be the American position to take the side of what is right. We have agreed to have talks with Iran for many years, but only with preconditions, which they refused. Preconditions means they cannot play a tyrant's game, such as Hitler would have done.

In Iran's case, we should note Ahmadjenidad is a petty tyrant, and we should respond to him the way one does to such evil. To go into talks without preconditions makes such a tyrant look legitimate and lets him play the United States, strengthening his position with Islamic Fundamentalists and with other nations in the world.
Although I agree with you, mostly. I wanted to point out that 'right' is subjective. What's right for us isn't necessarily right for anyone else. So, I think it might be closer to say that 'right' in this case is what is in our best interest as a nation. While that's selfish, it did free us from England and it got us through several major wars since then.

And anyone who says they'd rather have peace talks until the Iranians cave in without precondition is going to keep saying that until they or their families are at risk. Then, suddenly, their opinion will change if only temporarily.

Don't get me wrong, I think if we could come to a peaceable agreement with Iran, the world would be a better place but that's just not going to happen. I am forward-thinking on a lot of issues, but I don't think this is one of them.

If they don't back down, we remind them who's in charge. That's it.
 
  #96  
Old 02-17-2009, 11:17 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by troublescoot View Post
Although I agree with you, mostly. I wanted to point out that 'right' is subjective.
Some people have trouble seeing the difference between good and evil. Washington did not. Lincoln did not (although I know some people in this forum do not like Lincoln, but let's say at least he knew that slavery was evil, at a time when some people said it was not). No, I think that the difference can be seen more clearly than people in modern times often admit. There could be exceptions in some difficult cases, but these only require a little more time for all facts to be fully disclosed.

However, when people say distinguishing between good and evil is a problem... well... let's not go there just now. But I think Obama has that problem, at least to some extent.
 
  #97  
Old 02-17-2009, 07:21 PM
rabble's Avatar
rabble rabble is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-24-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,868
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
Where did he say that it would "make the US appear weak and undermine past US efforts to terrorize the world"?
What WhatsLeft said was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
The war in Iraq actually was started as a way of dealing with Islamic propaganda. Ben Ladin and others in the Middle East were proclaiming – “America is corrupt; America can be attacked on their homeland; America is weak; America does not have the will to fight.” By putting an army in Iraq, America made all those promoting the propaganda look ridiculous. So the Islamic world was determined to see we were defeated in Iraq. It we had lost, there would have been more attacks in America… but it’s not too late for Obama to screw things up. He let Islam play him on Iraq, and now he wants to do the same with Iran.
And, while you and WhatsLeft may not consider the death of 100,000 Iraqi citizens and the utter destruction of their nation's roads and power grid and water supply and the resulting chaos and mayem which caused millions to flee their homes an act of international terrorism, I do.

I also do not think it is improper for me to state my opinion in this open forum debate.
 
  #98  
Old 02-17-2009, 07:46 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
Krahmaan,

I started off the thread using satirical elements. To understand what I was doing required having at least a 10th grade course in English, up until the point the post was made specifically noting the satire. Then, less than 10th grade knowledge was necessary, but then I switched away from satire.

I set out a position that Obama wanting talks without preconditions has already been made to look ridiculous by Iran immediately demanding preconditions of withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and demanding an apology for criminal behavior. I noted that unless preconditions are set, Iran will continue to play Obama with similar results. I noted that one of the preconditions has to be no apology.

Early in the thread it was already pointed out, that Clinton already made an apology for past mistakes the USA made in Iran. So demanding another is all the more ridiculous.

Krahman, you quoted one sentence of all the posting I have done, and said that was my position. Really, your responses to me are so ridiculous. But then, how did we start in our posting together. You told me that it was contrary to forum procedure to make a post commenting on graphics software in the PS v PSP thread unless I first posted an example of my work, and the fact that I did not was an indication I was afraid to. Really?!??
Still not stating your position now are you?

You like to imply things without actually stating your opinions on the subject. Here let me give you an example of owning one's own position -since this type of knowledge still eludes you..
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
Apologizing for the sake of guts and the future -yes why not?
Anyone can go back and read the entire thread, and they will find you only as a type of 'referee' to if Obama should apologize or not. They won't find, in actuality you stating your position. Even till now, you still haven't stated it. You continue to imply that everybody knows what you're talking about.

Like I said before, it is not for us to read your mind or your intentions as to what you mean. Again, you stray from the matter at hand. Now you speak of an instance where you tried debating me in the Graphics forums. Totally irrelevant! This is the Politics forums, when you and I can now debate. You didn't do too good debating me in the Graphics forums as you attempted to state that you could read my mind, and that you knew my intentions of one of my posts. You did this without asking me to clarify it for you. You just jumped to conclusions, as if your scope of knowledge encompasses so much. It doesn't -friend IMO.

Back to the matter at hand. In this Politics forum, we are not required to know each others intents. So we are allowed to ask others to clarify their statements by asking questions. As I did to you. I asked you a simple question:
Quote:
What is really your position?
I asked that you answer this question with words, not by implying as you have continuously done threw out this thread. And still even now, you want me to guess what's in that head of yours. I won't, I don't have to & I refuse.

Why don't you just answer my question with words? Quit implying and talking around your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
If you keep responding to me in such manner as then and now, expect me to keep referring to your replies as completely ridiculous.
Giving me an ultimatum now are you? So what, that's always the easiest way to run away from a position or an argument. Be my guest.
 
  #99  
Old 02-17-2009, 08:05 PM
rabble's Avatar
rabble rabble is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-24-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,868
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
What you posted does not in any way relate to anything I said, but it would probably represent the position of Yasser Arafat and Ahmadenijad. It looks more like a restatement of Islamic propaganda. That's what Ahmadenijad would like to use the talks with the USA for, but he can only do so it there are no preconditions.
It serves nothing to try and label me a terrorist sympathizer to discredit me personally. My words are typed and lucid and I do think you have said what I
have said you said.

If the preconditions are not

A. agree to halt all dual use nuclear activity.
B. accept that Israel has a right systematically oppress the
Palestinian people in violation of over 100 resolutions of the United Nations.?

What are they?

I have already shown in the post above that you did claim the pirpose of the US attack on Iraq was to strike fear in the heart of Islam.

Are you going to say now that you also didn't say talks with Iran without preconditions amounted to appeasement?

Besides. Obama has set a precondition. He has told them they must unclinch their fist. It is far more likely they will do that than that they will get down and kiss the behind of the great and terrible OZ.
 
  #100  
Old 02-18-2009, 06:30 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
Still not stating your position now are you?
Krahmaan, I have stated over and over and over. Your posting is fake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
You like to imply things without actually stating your opinions on the subject. Here let me give you an example of owning one's own position
I started off with satirical elements. This required a 10th grade English course to understand until the satire was noted. I switched then off satire. It may be you never studied satire in high school, or it may be you are just trying to create an illusion for your own secondary and special motives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
You continue to imply that everybody knows what you're talking about.
But the people posting in the forum do appear to have studied English up to the 10th grade and beyond.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
Again, you stray from the matter at hand. Now you speak of an instance where you tried debating me in the Graphics forums. Totally irrelevant! This is the Politics forums, when you and I can now debate. You didn't do too good debating me in the Graphics forums as you attempted to state that you could read my mind,
Nope, I never tried to debate you. You tried to manipulate me through an insult and I called you on it. Then you went into a long mumbling session, such as you are doing here, rationalizing your approach, and I noted you were rationalizing to try to justify insulting me, and I left. The question then was, why did that type of posting have any meaning to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
Back to the matter at hand. In this Politics forum, we are not required to know each others intents. So we are allowed to ask others to clarify their statements by asking questions. As I did to you. I asked you a simple question:
If you ask a ridiculous question, either you will be called on it, or you will get a ridiculous answer. But what is your intent now? Your position is so ridiculous, aren't you posting merely as a way of looking for strife with another person. You are accomplishing nothing else, that is for certain.


Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
I asked that you answer this question with words, not by implying as you have continuously done threw out this thread. And still even now, you want me to guess what's in that head of yours. I won't, I don't have to & I refuse.
But did you study satire in high school? And if you are having to guess, well... the problem there isn't my posting... it's you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
So what, that's always the easiest way to run away from a position or an argument. Be my guest.
Krahmaan, part of the problem in your understanding my posting certainly appears to be delusional in basis.

Last edited by WhatsLeft; 02-18-2009 at 06:37 AM. Reason: spelling, add bold emphasis, add "and beyond"
 
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama South Controversial Social Issues 172 11-09-2008 05:43 PM
Are you an Obama bot? sitetutor Controversial Social Issues 41 10-08-2008 09:07 AM
I would like to apologize to HostNine for my previous statements. 3DProf4online Web Hosting Forum 9 09-25-2008 09:25 AM
Apologize... dee_el07 Forum Lobby 33 02-21-2008 07:38 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC