Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

On the Armenian GenocideFollow

#77 Oct 14 2007 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Palpitus wrote:
Abortion: Just look at the presidential candidates. No republicans call for outlawing it, unless I missed one.
You've missed several. Almost all of them call for overturning Roe v Wade. Most talk about appointing "strict constitutionalist judges" to the SCotUS which is barely veiled code for "over turn Roe v Wade". Several mention that overturning Roe v Wade is the first step to making sure the states outlaw it as well. Brownback (granted, not a front-runner) has famously declared that abortion should be illegal in every case, including rape and incest.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Oct 14 2007 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
trembling wrote:
I'm pointing out that people should think for themselves and not think in the black and white terms of political extremism
Yeah. We should avoid the black and white of "Those politicans are all the same". I agree. Anyone who'd think like that is obviously brain-washed.


The basic principles of politics are the same all over the world regardless of party or beliefs, hence the term 'politics'. If you didn't have the black and white mentality of a political extremist, this would be one of the facts you'd be able to acknowledge.

Understanding how politics works is simple for most intelligent people. It's not something that brainwashed extremist fan boys can do or are willing to learn as you continue to illustrate with each post however.

Maybe one day you will grow some balls from somewhere and get the courage to learn how the world around you works. I doubt it though.
____________________________
Point made
#79 Oct 14 2007 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trembling wrote:
The basic principles of politics are the same all over the world regardless of party or beliefs, hence the term 'politics'.
Smiley: laugh

I'm not sure what the **** you're trying to prove with that statement but it obviously wasn't your mastery of etymology.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Oct 14 2007 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
This has to be a troll, but anyway:

Celcio wrote:
Which was precisely my point.

You seem to want to define the world in terms of those who identify with a platform and those "free-thinking smart people" who don't. You don't leave room for those that largely identify with a partisan political platform but can also see past it. You simply want to call them names and only see it one way.

Are you sure it's me that doesn't make any sense?



trembling wrote:
Yes, it's you that makes no sense.

I'm pointing out that people should think for themselves and not think in the black and white terms of political extremism, the exact opposite of what you're saying.


The political extremists you profess to despise? They don't exist. Or rather, they exist only in your head and in the "analysis" of professional polemicists. They're straw men, one and all.

Everyone, everyone, falls in the middle somewhere. Sure, some are far enough to the right to only ever think of voting Republican, and some are far enough to the left to only ever vote Democratic, and some go far enough to vote Libertarian or Socialist or whatever. But even the most extreme are in the gray area.

It's a bell curve. I'd bet that most Americans fall somewhere in the middle third of the continuum, and weigh each issue before deciding which way they're voting this time, because the issues an individual cares about will have weight, and the issues his usual party thinks are important will have less weight.

It's why we don't just do a census and divide the votes the way they could be predicted to fall.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#81 Oct 14 2007 at 6:57 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Celcio wrote:
Really? I'm pointing out that people should think for themselves and judge people on their own merit and not in the black and white terms of political affiliation or non-affiliation.

Hypocrite.

edit: or judge them based on their speelllingg. Oy.


No, you’re not pointing that out at all. You originally tried to score some semantic point in your head by twisting words but failed. The more you write, the less sense you make.

Trying to make out that people thinking for themselves instead of blindly following party lines is a black and white choice so technically that’s hypocritical is feeble even for a keyboard warrior with poor spelling skills.

If you don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute then it’s best not to bother.
____________________________
Point made
#82 Oct 14 2007 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, at least he hasn't said "Republicrats and Democians" yet.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Oct 14 2007 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Guru
***
3,339 posts
trembling wrote:
If you don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute then it’s best not to bother.


I'd recommend you take your own advice but something tells me this is just starting to get good.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking hoping the asylum will pick up at some point.


trembling wrote:
Trying to make out that people thinking for themselves instead of blindly following party lines is a black and white choice so technically that’s hypocritical is feeble even for a keyboard warrior with poor spelling skills.


Oh and it's one thing for me to explain my edit, quite another for you to comment on my spelling skills with the above non-sensical paragraph. Why do you hate punctuation? Does it vote in a primary or something?

Edited, Oct 14th 2007 11:02pm by Celcio
____________________________
Kavekk wrote:
I must admit, I'm much nicer to people IRL. It's not that the internet makes me bold, it's just that in real life I can only kill people once, so there's no point in camping them afterwards.
#84 Oct 14 2007 at 7:04 PM Rating: Decent
**
903 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You've missed several. Almost all of them call for overturning Roe v Wade. Most talk about appointing "strict constitutionalist judges" to the SCotUS which is barely veiled code for "over turn Roe v Wade". Several mention that overturning Roe v Wade is the first step to making sure the states outlaw it as well. Brownback (granted, not a front-runner) has famously declared that abortion should be illegal in every case, including rape and incest.


Thanks.
#85 Oct 14 2007 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Guru
***
3,339 posts
Palpitus wrote:
Health care: Few democrats pound their fists in fury over the lack of universal health care. Few republicans do the same over completely privatized health care. Most are content to speak vehemently on their chosen partisan side every 6-8 months, then settle into minor debates over details of current care. Is it because they don't have enough support to win their agenda? I think more because it provides a nice apparent divide that they can use to win partisan support.


Providing the apparent divide sort of speaks against your statement, no? We said platforms not actions, didn't we?

Quote:
Abortion: Just look at the presidential candidates. No republicans call for outlawing it, unless I missed one. No democrats call for allowing it in all circumstances. They just debate over partial birth and other nuances.


Thanks Joph.

Quote:
Family: Jeez, enough *** marriage examples, they're killing me.


Er this comes into play more than in the *** issue - birth vs adopted parental rights, common law vs lawfully wedded rights and privileges (not just ***, straight too), there's actually quite a lot going on here though admittedly on a state by state basis and often overlaps into health care issues.

Quote:
Racial Relations: An occasional vehement support/denunciation of Affirmative Action, with the other 99% of the time ignoring it aside from EEOC details. Past transgressions and recompense--no serious Democrat is railing for that. The issue itself is fairly tepid though.


Yeah except for when something happens in an urban area and people all line up on their sides explaining their points of view and rationalizing their own partisan interpretation of the laws/programs (gun control, inner city funding, social programs, etc)


I agree that everything isn't as polarized as much as the media would like us to believe. But there is more of a difference between the two than you seem to realize.
____________________________
Kavekk wrote:
I must admit, I'm much nicer to people IRL. It's not that the internet makes me bold, it's just that in real life I can only kill people once, so there's no point in camping them afterwards.
#86 Oct 14 2007 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
**
744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
trembling wrote:
The only one talking about 'evil' politicians is you. Blithering about anarchy or 'evil' politicians is so embarrassingly clichéd, I feel embarrassed for you.
Likewise.
Quote:
If you have an IQ in triple figures, are over 20 years old and don't understand what politics is, how it works, why politicians do the things they do or how the world works then there is not much I can do to help you, I'm afraid.
Well, gosh! I better listen to you because I'd hate it if you said I was dumb and ignorant!

You're right! This resolution was created only to distract everyone from the civilian deaths in Iraq! Never mind the fact that few people actually have a clue about the resolution whereas death tolls in Iraq are nightly news. And never mind that Congress has been pressing the same thing since at least the early 1980s. This time, it was so no one would think about civilian deaths in Iraq!

It's no so simple! And now I don't need to be accused of waving a flag! Hooray!

Smiley: laugh


Sad...very sad.

You're a disgrace as a human being Jophiel.

Why?

Because you have brains. If you were born a redneck with a 90 IQ you could be excused your wilful ignorance.

You have the ability to understand how the world works and if you don't know, then you have the capacity to research and become educated. Books, the Internet, travel, interviews. There are many retired politicians who will happily speak to you off the record about their lives or you could read some of their books.

But your ignorance is wilful. You choose it as a way of life.

You prefer to spend your days as a member of team Democrat, swapping one liners with your Neo-Con equivalents on Internet message boards and waging your war the only way you know how, by defending to the death a bunch of politicians who don't give two ***** if you live or die so long as you make them money.

What a waste of life.

Tonight it was simply suggested that people should think for themselves, use their eyes to observe the world around them and find out things for themselves instead of believing everything they're told.

For anyone to spend 2 hours hysterically attacking that philosophy and trying to belittle it makes you a very sick person indeed Jophiel.
____________________________
Point made
#87 Oct 14 2007 at 7:30 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
trembling wrote:
The basic principles of politics are the same all over the world regardless of party or beliefs, hence the term 'politics'.
Smiley: laugh

I'm not sure what the **** you're trying to prove with that statement but it obviously wasn't your mastery of etymology.



It seems you don't understand a lot of things. Including the word 'etymology'. You shouldn't use words you don't understand.

The only thing you seem to want to prove is my point about loony extremist keyboard warriors who believe thinking for themselves is a bad thing. You're doing a great job of it with every post.
____________________________
Point made
#88 Oct 14 2007 at 7:35 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Samira wrote:
The political extremists you profess to despise? They don't exist. Or rather, they exist only in your head and in the "analysis" of professional polemicists. They're straw men, one and all.

Everyone, everyone, falls in the middle somewhere. Sure, some are far enough to the right to only ever think of voting Republican, and some are far enough to the left to only ever vote Democratic, and some go far enough to vote Libertarian or Socialist or whatever. But even the most extreme are in the gray area.


With that reply, the only troll on here has to be you.

There are no political extremists in the world? None in America? Are you serious?

No Neo Cons, no Liberal extremists, everyone is a dull shade of grey?

If you are a troll, you're not a very good one.
____________________________
Point made
#89 Oct 14 2007 at 7:37 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Well, at least he hasn't said "Republicrats and Democians" yet.


I'll leave talking crap to you. You do enough for both of us.
____________________________
Point made
#90 Oct 14 2007 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Yeah, okay. Troll it is.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#91 Oct 14 2007 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trembling wrote:
You're a disgrace as a human being Jophiel.
Heart-rending as that was, I'll have to take your complete lack of a defense for your theories as admission that you're full of shit.
Quote:
For anyone to spend 2 hours hysterically attacking
Well, two hours reading other forums. I think I've put a combined six minutes into my posts to you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Oct 14 2007 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Guru
***
3,339 posts
trembling wrote:
You prefer to spend your days as a member of team Democrat, swapping one liners with your Neo-Con equivalents on Internet message boards and waging your war the only way you know how, by defending to the death a bunch of politicians who don't give two sh*ts if you live or die so long as you make them money.


Wow, you're ignorant.

Have you ever read anything from Joph here? Or are you just blindly believing that anyone who has some beliefs that align with a party platform must behave as you imply above?

Which, of course, has been our point all along.

Again, wow you're ignorant.
____________________________
Kavekk wrote:
I must admit, I'm much nicer to people IRL. It's not that the internet makes me bold, it's just that in real life I can only kill people once, so there's no point in camping them afterwards.
#93 Oct 14 2007 at 7:45 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Celcio wrote:
trembling wrote:
If you don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute then it’s best not to bother.


I'd recommend you take your own advice but something tells me this is just starting to get good.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking hoping the asylum will pick up at some point.


trembling wrote:
Trying to make out that people thinking for themselves instead of blindly following party lines is a black and white choice so technically that’s hypocritical is feeble even for a keyboard warrior with poor spelling skills.


Oh and it's one thing for me to explain my edit, quite another for you to comment on my spelling skills with the above non-sensical paragraph. Why do you hate punctuation? Does it vote in a primary or something?

Edited, Oct 14th 2007 11:02pm by Celcio



As you illustrate yet again, you still have nothing of worth to contribute to this thread. I really don't care if you're good at spelling or not. Spelling doesn't contribute to a man's worth. You have plenty of other failings to right first before you concentrate on your spelling.

As for the Asylum picking up, I doubt it will on this thread.

Even most Asylumites would struggle to find a problem with the simple philosophy of 'it's good to think for yourself'.
____________________________
Point made
#94 Oct 14 2007 at 7:49 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Samira wrote:
Yeah, okay. Troll it is.


I thought you were. No one could really think that there are no extremists in America. I didn't fall for your trolling though. :P
____________________________
Point made
#95 Oct 14 2007 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
Guru
***
3,339 posts
Samira wrote:
Yeah, okay. Troll it is.


/nod
____________________________
Kavekk wrote:
I must admit, I'm much nicer to people IRL. It's not that the internet makes me bold, it's just that in real life I can only kill people once, so there's no point in camping them afterwards.
#96 Oct 14 2007 at 7:52 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
trembling wrote:
You're a disgrace as a human being Jophiel.
Heart-rending as that was, I'll have to take your complete lack of a defense for your theories as admission that you're full of shit.
Quote:
For anyone to spend 2 hours hysterically attacking
Well, two hours reading other forums. I think I've put a combined six minutes into my posts to you.


Um, I hate to break this to you, keyboard warrior, but 'Think for yourself' isn't a theory that needs proving.

Your mistake is in thinking I am here to prove you a hysterical extremist who believes thinking for himself is a bad thing.

I'm not.

I'm here to see you prove it.
____________________________
Point made
#97 Oct 14 2007 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
trembling wrote:
Samira wrote:
Yeah, okay. Troll it is.


I thought you were. No one could really think that there are no extremists in America. I didn't fall for your trolling though. :P


Oh, the old "I know you are but what am I?" ploy. That's about your speed, I suppose, so good game.



____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#98 Oct 14 2007 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

If I had to wager on it, I'd guess this was Bodhi relieving boredom during his temporary ban.


____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#99 Oct 14 2007 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
**
744 posts
Celcio wrote:
trembling wrote:
You prefer to spend your days as a member of team Democrat, swapping one liners with your Neo-Con equivalents on Internet message boards and waging your war the only way you know how, by defending to the death a bunch of politicians who don't give two sh*ts if you live or die so long as you make them money.


Wow, you're ignorant.

Have you ever read anything from Joph here? Or are you just blindly believing that anyone who has some beliefs that align with a party platform must behave as you imply above?

Which, of course, has been our point all along.

Again, wow you're ignorant.



No, I'm not ignorant. I've read many of his threads. And the description applies.

Maybe one day you will learn how to reply to what is actually written instead of what you want people to have said or meant, which is all your type do. But then you would fail as a keyboard warrior as you'd have nothing to write and no points to try and win in your head.
____________________________
Point made
#100 Oct 14 2007 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,913 posts
Seems to be a clear IP address. Though someone did norate it at some point.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#101 Oct 14 2007 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trembling wrote:
but 'Think for yourself' isn't a theory that needs proving.
Wasn't what I asked.
Quote:
Your mistake is in thinking I am here to prove you a hysterical extremist
I'd hope that you're not. If that's why you were here, I'd try to turn you onto a website full of Flash games or some other, more fruitful, ways to pass your time.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)