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 |
  #101  
Old 02-18-2009, 06:42 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No Longer Active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
It serves nothing to try and label me a terrorist sympathizer to discredit me personally. My words are typed and lucid
I never called you a terrorist sympathizer. You are making it up. I said what you stated looks like Islamic propaganda. You are having a conversation with your own imagination.
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #102  
Old 02-18-2009, 06:45 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No Longer Active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
What WhatsLeft said was:



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.
You are off issue. You are using the thread to express Islamic propaganda. That's how it will work if Obama sets up talks with Iran without preconditions.
 
  #103  
Old 02-18-2009, 07:09 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,770
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgzn View Post
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?"
2003-2009 in Iraq? One week?!?!?
That's one hell of a week!

What would be your next move, then, when they decide to call your bluff?
 
  #104  
Old 02-18-2009, 09:39 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Krahman,

After you said I had not stated my position clearly, I reviewed my posting in message #81. Anyone who has completed the 8th grade could have seen from the review what position I had set out. It was so obvious, I asked you to guess what it was, only because it emphasized how ridiculous your asking for the restatement was. So you responded with asking why I wanted you to guess, as it was my responsibility to be more clear. You were faking it!!!

I remember reading a post by you, wherein you said you grew up in inner city Los Angeles. I knew what you were talking about, as I grew up in inner city Pittsburgh. One thing about our old neighborhoods is, that the people from them, after they become adults, often go through life looking for strife with people. It's from part of how they got by in the old neighborhood. And as adults, they often never admit that what they are doing is looking for strife. Then, some of the guys grow out of it, and some don't.

Let me ask you -- in this thread, is it possible you are carrying around some of the old neighborhood? If so, that's fine. It doesn't bother me. But sooner or later, you should admit what is going on.

P.S. this is my second response to you after your last post.

Last edited by WhatsLeft; 02-18-2009 at 09:56 AM. Reason: add punctuation and then add P.S.
 
  #105  
Old 02-18-2009, 09:46 AM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
2003-2009 in Iraq? One week?!?!?
That's one hell of a week!

What would be your next move, then, when they decide to call your bluff?
Zap,

He was talking about what he believes we really have the capacity to do, not what happened without utilizing the potential of our power.
 
  #106  
Old 02-18-2009, 10:19 AM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
OK then WhatsLeft.

Since you say you've already stated your opinion. Re-post it word for word where you state your opinion in this thread "if Obama should apologize or not". Quote yourself saying this position. And let us all see if you were actually stating your position or were just implying it. (Being my point here) That should get to the bottom of this, rather than you attempting to tell me about my past which you have never step foot on.

Your turn. *But please, try to stay on the subject at hand this time -I can wait.
 
  #107  
Old 02-18-2009, 12:23 PM
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



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.
Of course you can state your opinion as your opinion. The problem is, you stated your opinion as his opinion.

Read the rules. They specifically state that you are not misrepresent the positions held by others. Of course, common honesty would dictate that without referring to the rules.
 
  #108  
Old 02-18-2009, 12:49 PM
troublescoot troublescoot is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 02-16-09
Posts: 60
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
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).
You're not joking?

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which allowed him to arrest thousands of U.S. citizens (including plenty of journalists) and hold them without cause or trial. When a U.S. Circuit Court overturned Lincoln on this, he simply ignored their ruling.

How's that in terms of black and white?

Speaking of black and white, Lincoln never had a particularly high opinion of blacks, starting from indifference to the plight of slavery and eventually concluding that freed slaves should be shipped back to Africa.

I see your out though, you're saying they can SEE the difference between good and evil, not necessarily that they'll choose one over the other. But this out is flawed, because the point you're trying to support is that there is a definitive difference between right and wrong.

We both know that's just not true. While, yes, there are some universal rights/wrongs as outlined by a number of religions as well as common sense (don't kill, use the golden rule, don't steal, don't bear false witness, etc.), there are differences in cultures that shove your black and white 'right and wrong' into a gradient between the two. From something as small as whether it's "right" to smoke cigarettes or marijuana to something as big as whether it's "right" for two homosexuals to get married to whether it's right for one country to survive while another suffers genocide.

I am definitely of the "them or us, so them" mentality but I am under no illusion that it's universally 'right.' It's, without a doubt, right for -us- and us alone.

Quote:
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.
Anyone in their sane mind would have that problem. Of course, whether we admit it or not, we'd all like to live like the Beatles' "Imagine" paints it -- no religion, no war, peace, living for today, etc. No one who isn't out of their gourd wants to see people hurt, but the ****ty reality of it all is that people will continue to get hurt unless something gets done. Definitely a shady area and has to weigh heavily on the new president's conscience.

I'm sure a lot of people might have no problem saying "I'd have no problem nuking the hell out of 'em! That's what God would want!" and you know what? They're no different than the people they want to nuke. Yikes.
 
  #109  
Old 02-18-2009, 01:32 PM
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 troublescoot View Post
You're not joking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...tes_Presidents

Lincoln is rated at the top by most historians.
 
  #110  
Old 02-18-2009, 02:33 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
Of course you can state your opinion as your opinion. The problem is, you stated your opinion as his opinion.

Read the rules. They specifically state that you are not misrepresent the positions held by others. Of course, common honesty would dictate that without referring to the rules.
I'm sure whatsLeft is big enough to play in the playground by himself.

But ... point taken.
 
  #111  
Old 02-18-2009, 02:44 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
You are off issue. You are using the thread to express Islamic propaganda. That's how it will work if Obama sets up talks with Iran without preconditions.
And you are using it to express neo-con / faux news, nationalistc / quasi-fascist, running dog, corporate imperialist propaganda. So what?

You afraid to debate?

Last edited by rabble; 02-18-2009 at 02:52 PM. Reason: removed a possessive term to keep J Scott happy
 
  #112  
Old 02-18-2009, 02:50 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 rabble View Post
I'm sure whatsLeft is big enough to play in the playground by himself.

But ... point taken.
^ Very good point. I understood your sarcasm addressing WhatsLeft.

I'm still waiting for a 'verbal' answer to one simple question. I don't play the guessing game too well. And I have the right to refuse to play it -especially in a debate. It's not too hard to state a position clearly. But I see how you were able to attempt to state it for him, since he has still yet to state his own with ownership.

I just might just look to your perspective of his position, since I'm doubting that he will ever outright state it.
 
  #113  
Old 02-18-2009, 02:53 PM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
OK then WhatsLeft.

Since you say you've already stated your opinion. Re-post it word for word where you state your opinion in this thread "if Obama should apologize or not".
But I already have restated it more than once since you said it was not clear, and you just made out like it didn't say what it said. You are faking!!! Now if I set out the position again, you will fake what it I am saying. But you are only faking yourself... and you're trying to play me, hoping that because my position was set out over so many posts and forum pages, I will not take the time to respond?? Well, I just typed out a review of my posting, up to the point wherein you asked what my position is, in MS Word and it is three pages.

Now I will put in bold where your post is that asks me what my position is. That's post #79, and I did a lot of posting before that -- and my position is clear... so clear that I can assure you the eighth graders I used to teach in public school would not have any trouble understanding it.

Only I'm going to tell you where the posts are and what they say, and then, you can take your time to look them up and do the reading -- because you position is completely ridiculous.
 
  #114  
Old 02-18-2009, 02:56 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
How do you start a thread without clearly stating your position? Then when asked to do so, you use tactics to demean others intelligence. These are the ways of a novice debater in my opinion. But we'll see where this leads..

Last edited by krahmaan; 02-18-2009 at 03:07 PM. Reason: typo
 
  #115  
Old 02-18-2009, 02:58 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
But I already have restated it more than once since you said it was not clear, and you just made out like it didn't say what it said. You are faking!!! Now if I set out the position again, you will fake what it I am saying. But you are only faking yourself... and you're trying to play me, hoping that because my position was set out over so many posts and forum pages, I will not take the time to respond?? Well, I just typed out a review of my posting, up to the point wherein you asked what my position is, in MS Word and it is three pages.

Now I will put in bold where your post is that asks me what my position is. That's post #79, and I did a lot of posting before that -- and my position is clear... so clear that I can assure you the eighth graders I used to teach in public school would not have any trouble understanding it.

Only I'm going to tell you where the posts are and what they say, and then, you can take your time to look them up and do the reading -- because you position is completely ridiculous.
I asked you to re-post where you clearly stated it. Still you can not. Why? Because it's not there. I rest my case.
 
  #116  
Old 02-18-2009, 03:02 PM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Review of my posting in this thread up to the point wherein Krahmaan asked me what my position is --

My very first post in starting the thread, notes that in response to Obama on Muslim TV indicating a desire for talks with Iran, Ahmadinejad called for an apology from him for our criminal behavior as a precondition, and also the withdrawing of support for Israel. My post indicates the satire I’m utilizing by making fun of the fact that the thought of an apology by Obama on behalf of the USA would be the tactic of a “community organizer,’ the basis Obama held he was experienced enough to be president. It also makes fun of the fact that his administration says their diplomacy will be based on being “smart.” (Thus, how he was placed in a situation where an apology was demanded actually made him look dumb.)

My next post, #7 in the thread, makes fun of Obama for apologizing to Europe for Americans being Americans. I then make fun of the fact that even without the apology he can negotiate on an issue important to Ahmadinejad such as whether the holocaust happened.

My next, #10, makes further fun of the idea of having talks over the holocaust being “smart” diplomacy.

My next post, #26, makes fun of how making such an apology could be considered the “change we need,” a slogan Obama ran his campaign on. I note such an apology would be tantamount to the appeasement of Neville Chamberlain and Joseph Kennedy with Hitler before WWII, and it could be he was following their example in trying to initiate talks (which is without precondition, as he campaigned he would do) – which is a way of making fun of what is going on.

My next post #27, notes that Ahmadinejad had just demanded Obama withdraw all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan as another precondition to having talks, and that Ahmadinejad noted the USA should withdraw all their troops from any country in the world. I make fun of the letter Obama is reported to be writing to Iran as compared to what he says is “smart” diplomacy, and as to what he could be thinking on troop withdrawal, and as to what Hillary, the “smart diplomat,” might do.

At this point an apparent “frustrated” poster asks me if I even know what appeasement means. In response, my post #32, I compare Obama’s thinking on the talks to an aspect of his stimulus plan, noting the part that spends money to improve people’s sex lives as a way to improve the economy. Again, I am making fun of Obama’s thinking, which is easy to do as it is anything but smart. However, I note that Obama actually is smart as a person, but smart politicians fail due to basing their thinking on delusion, as Hitler did.

My next post #34, is a response to a poster on party affiliation, making fun of Obama as being a “smart” thinker, for trying to establish bi-partisanship by visiting members of Congress and telling them not to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

My next post, #39, notes that Obama probably will have to apologize, as he just ordered a more than 10% cut on military spending, and I make fun of how this type of thinking is not smart at all. I go on making fun of what likely will ensue as a result and note it is consistent with attending a church for 20 years that preached “God D_mn America.”

My next post, #42, asks where I can find a church that preaches, “God have mercy on us all.”

My next post, #43, notes I will have to be praying for our troops to be able to get ammunition.

My posts 52, 54, 56 defends my right to make a reference to prayer in the thread.

In post 57, another poster makes note of the use of satire in the thread.

My next post #60, quotes another poster’s position that weakness is strength and refers to it as nave.

My next post #62 is an explanation of my response in #60.

My next post #66 reviews how Ahmadinejad will play Obama like Chamberlain was played, and notes how Ahmadinejad’s precondition (of demanding an apology and troop withdrawal) have already made Obama look ridiculous. I note it is reasonable to compare Obama to Chamberlain. I note Iran’s views are utterly ridiculous (which would include the demand for an apology), and I note that their response to Obama has made him look ridiculous, (which refers to their preconditions of an apology and troop withdrawal). I note that Obama is mistaken in how he is trying to reach out to Iran.

My next post #68, notes the parallels between Ahmadinejad and Hitler, and Hitler negotiating with Chamberlain, and how ridiculous the talks could end up.

My next post, #70 notes that Ahmadinejad’s demand for an apology makes Obama look foolish, and that his desire for talks without preconditions makes him look ridiculous and plays into Ahmadinejad’s hands.

My next post, #72 notes that the meaning of one of my prior posts was established by context.

My next post, #74, responds to straw man arguments, and includes my noting that Iran’s demand for preconditions (which are the apology and troop withdrawal) makes Obama look ridiculous.

My next post #75 notes examples on how the USA should set preconditions for talks which include no apology.

My next post, #77 continues explaining the Chamberlain parallel.

Now – Krahmaan's post at #79 asks what my position is.


My next post, #81 restates my position. Then I ask you, Krahmaan, to guess what it is, as your request to know my position was completely ridiculous.

And then you go on claiming you cannot understand. I restate. You keep claiming you can’t understand. Your posting on the issue is completely ridiculous.

Last edited by WhatsLeft; 02-18-2009 at 03:09 PM. Reason: spelling, and two words got reversed, corrected, remove "on" in a sentence
 
  #117  
Old 02-18-2009, 03:14 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
My next post, #81 restates my position. Then I ask you, Krahmaan, to guess what it is, as your request to know my position was completely ridiculous.
Yes, correct you asked me to guess. Because you never actually said that you believed that Obama should or should not apologize. Not even now, have you done that.

How do I know what your intentions or motives are, unless you specifically say it? So why not just say it? Doesn't make a fair argument when your position on a matter which you've brought up still has not been stated.
 
  #118  
Old 02-18-2009, 03:14 PM
WhatsLeft WhatsLeft is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by krahmaan View Post
he has still yet to state his own with ownership...I just might just look to your perspective of his position, since I'm doubting that he will ever outright statt.
I've stated it again and again -- even repeating it after you asked for the restatement. And just now I set it out again, but I have no doubt you will continue to deny I have stated it. You are faking. It's like a debate in kindergarten.
 
  #119  
Old 02-18-2009, 03:17 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've stated it again and again -- even repeating it after you asked for the restatement. And just now I set it out again, but I have no doubt you will continue to deny I have stated it. You are faking. It's like a debate in kindergarten.
Post it then. Why can't you post the link to it?

It's not there, that's why.
 
  #120  
Old 02-18-2009, 03:20 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
You can call me all the names you want, or try and demean my intellegence all you like. But the fact will still remain that you still haven't said that you believe Obama should or should not apologize.

I can prove this for as long as you like. You'll have a long thread indeed, but of misrepresentation.
 
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 11:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC