|
U-Know! Forum » barack's nuts |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tinky10675 209 posts |
Jul 15, 2008, 05:17
|
||
|
Lawrence wrote: Well I'm sick of having to eat crow from the so-called "silent majority" so I'm voting Obama and not-looking-back. If the country falls apart it'll obviously be Bush's fault and not Obama's anyways... I don't agree with you Lawrence but I Do hope that however things turn out shit wont splatter too far when it hits the fan and I see that as inevitable regardless of who's in office.It's how they handle that inevitable that im betting my vote on. Who's gonna handle the pressure of shit hitting the fan best.Either way lets hope the person who does get in there is able to deal with it.
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Jul 15, 2008, 11:45
|
||
|
Tinky, I'm with you that the blame for mess under Obama can't squarely be put on Bush. An Obama administration would avoid making many responsible choices (the two that get me most are climate non-solutions like bioethanol and 'clean coal'). By the same token, the blame for Bush's actions lie not just with him or even his cabal, but with the vested interests that put them in office and keep them there. Almost all of them will be in the same positions of power; the Big Fossil guys who pull the Bush strings will also pull McCain's or Obama's. If the US public hates paying what it thinks are high prices for gasoline and US corporations hate to relinquish their power, the only route is to keep gas prices as low as possible for as long as possible. That means controlling the global oil supply to as great a degree as possible, which means staying in Iraq and finding a way to puppet Iran (presumably the Iraq model being a solution of last resort). However, there is surely a difference between an avowedly pro-war anti-abortionist and a more reluctant pro-choice candidate. Whilst there are few differences between them - they're both cheerleaders for American global domination, obscene overconsumption, wilful unsustainability and rampant freemarket capitalism - there are still people, places and possibly whole species whose welfare lives in the gap between the two. While you're here Tinky, would you mind answering the questions I put to you earlier in this thread?
|
|||
|
tinky10675 209 posts |
Jul 15, 2008, 14:17
|
||
It's in there somewhere Merrick.Don't think me rude for not repeating myself but I'm just tired of defending myself to Idiots who only see their position as the answer.Kinda like the crusaders of old converting people to their religion or dealing with the consequences.Frankly im sick of the power the self righteous have on this topic. That does not include you or several others who have had intelligent debate in this forum but there is always a few cancers who plague a forum such as this and I think they are aware of who they are. I will not allow some Idiot to refer to me as a racist or worse because I dont agree with their onesided view of the world.They can keep this thread I think everyone has said there piece on the topic.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jul 15, 2008, 14:48
|
||
|
Go fuck yourself, Tinky. You are obviously a right wing sympathizer trying to accuse everyone else here of being idiots and conformists for not seriously considering your position. You persist in arguing that might makes right. It doesn't. Oh sure, it'll get results, maybe for a while, maybe longer. But ultimately a nation that stomps all over the globe seeking to dominate for the sake of it's own overindulgence faces what America's facing now, which is damage to its credibility, trustworthiness, and integrity. Ultimately this leads to our having to pour more and more resources into defense, nervously watching out for the attacks that we've brought on ourselves. Oh... right! It's already happened! I'm not a fool. I understand that interests have to be protected. But if we're going to try to rule the oil fields at the point of a gun, as you would have us continue to do under McCain, we'll still be carting bodies home from the middle east in four years, which is something you seem to be comfortable with. So kiss my ass, jack. Maybe you're 'brave' for coming into a den of liberals, as PMM sez, but I think you're just a fucking troll with slightly more than average intelligence. But only slightly.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Jul 15, 2008, 14:52
|
||
Yeah, and I ain't opening up to McSame as long as those on the right continuously spout their garbage that "liberalism is a mental disorder". I think the kind of neo-McCarthyism that exists in this country is disgusting.
|
|||
|
Merrick 2148 posts |
Edited Jul 15, 2008, 15:00
Jul 15, 2008, 14:55
|
||
|
It really is not 'in there somewhere', Tinky. You have steadfastly avoided answering some straightforward questions. To repeat: Do you really think we should live in a way that gives more to the bloated minority at the expense of the majority? You can euphemise it as maintaining your place 'at the top of the ladder', but what it actually means is killing people in vast numbers because they happen to live near resources that you don't need but would like. And then there's: tinky10675 wrote: if you are so discontent I think i've already explained to you how an airport works in a previous posting. So if someone doesn't like the way their country presently works they should leave? Might it not be a good idea to change what's wrong? All those anti-war activists, hell all those Green party people you say you approve of, why don't they just go somewhere that likes their ideas? Saying Dave's wrong because he 'is just as guilty of living the American Dream' doesn't make any difference to the morality of your beliefs. Answer me these; do you think that everyone has an equal right to the world's resources? Is it wrong that some people should vastly overconsume luxury even though it takes the essentials of life away from a great many more? If you don't answer an instant straight yes to both of those, can you please explain what you mean when you say you are Green? = = = You came back and posted, but just had another go at Dave for the same reason I'd already rebutted, and ignored everything I'd asked. So I pointed that out again and asked you to answer the questions. You posted again ignoring all points put to you, so - again - I asked you to do so. tinky10675 wrote: Kinda like the crusaders of old converting people to their religion or dealing with the consequences. That strikes me as a very peculiar comparison. The Crusaders came from the West and went into the Middle East to change it to their will and kill those who opposed them. Today, that job is being done by US military precisely because the US has such a huge thirst for oil. That thirst, that taking of far more than a fair share, is far more like the Crusader attitude than those who say we should live as if other people's lives matter. Yet American overconsumption is precisely the lifestyle you've praised on this thread. tinky10675 wrote: I will not allow some Idiot to refer to me as a racist or worse because I dont agree with their onesided view of the world. Actually, they said 'don't forget your Klan hood' when you said you'd gladly hold Barack Obama down while his testicles were pulled off. I presume you didn't mean it literally; it's therefore possible the response wasn't as literal but was instead rising to the level of exaggeration you set. Personally, I thought it was way over the top and had a clear implication of calling you racist, that you were right that it's an extremely heavy charge to make and the first mention of race in the discussion. But then Dave explained what I didn't know, the historical precedents of castration of black men in racist lynchings, and that your citing castration may well have been referencing that, or was at least particularly insensitive in light of it. That heated issue remains unresolved, and is a side-issue to what you and I are discussing. tinky10675 wrote: I think everyone has said there piece on the topic. No they haven't. You still haven't answered any of what I asked you. tinky10675 wrote: I'm just tired of defending myself to Idiots who only see their position as the answer....That does not include you In which case, defend yourself to me. tinky10675 wrote: Don't think me rude for not repeating myself I don't; I am not asking you to repeat yourself. I am asking you to answer things for the first time. Again.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jul 15, 2008, 15:16
|
||
|
Merrick wrote: tinky10675 wrote: Don't think me rude for not repeating myself I don't; I am not asking you to repeat yourself. I am asking you to answer things for the first time. Again. Don't hold your breath, Merrick. This guy has nothing to contribute to the discussion that doesn't involve his own incredibly self-centered need to feel superior... to EVERYONE. Including you, hence his ignoring your questions, tho he seems to think he's got an ally in you. I commend you for being more patient than I am with him, but from everything he's had to say that I've read on H2H so far it's patently obvious that his only interest in signing in is to set himself up as the lonely, terribly misunderstood and unappreciated voice of wisdom in a sea of fools. What a sociopathic arrogance.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Edited Jul 15, 2008, 15:21
Jul 15, 2008, 15:18
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: I commend you for being more patient than I am with him, but from everything he's had to say that I've read on H2H so far it's patently obvious that his only interest in signing in is to set himself up as the lonely, terribly misunderstood and unappreciated voice of wisdom in a sea of fools. What a sociopathic arrogance. Sounds a bit like a troll here I had to deal with here long ago. Only he was even more condescending than Tinky...
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jul 15, 2008, 15:23
|
||
He reminds me of all the pro-war trolls who used to swarm all over the old yahoo message boards. I'm sad to see one of them found his way here.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Edited Jul 15, 2008, 15:29
Jul 15, 2008, 15:28
|
||
|
Well that troll I had a flame war with long ago was definitely pro-war, even more so than Tinky. He had that Christopher Hitchens argument for the Gulf War that was essentially Islamophobic. Not to mention he seemed to have a fear of all religion to begin with... Yeah, PMM thinks I shouldn't dwell on the past too much...
|
| Pages: 16 – [ Previous | 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
