Shawn R. L.
New member
The party that broadcasts their \'tolerance of diversity and respect of other views\' bears their fangs if one dares to stray from their mantra. At least be consistant.
Non-Americans can be sooo gullible
- Thread starter vincegamer
- Start date
The party that broadcasts their \'tolerance of diversity and respect of other views\' bears their fangs if one dares to stray from their mantra. At least be consistant.
darthfoley
Active member
Am I missing a joke here, or are you really claiming intellectual superiority in a message containing misspellings, incorrect grammar, and incorrect political map placement?
I mean, I disagree with Shawn on this issue too, but dial it back a notch, man.
[Originally by Darthfoley[/i]
However; Markus You are stepping well over the line with your tirade. Remember that this is a forum ostensibly about Toy Soldiers.
If you have differing political views to other people great, I will defend your right to hold them, just as I will defend Shawn.R.L\'s right to hold his views.
Please remember that there are rules to the forums and the moderators are tolerant people. But there are limits.
Darthfoley put it quite succinctly : \"dial it back a notch, man\".
OK
As an outsider to American politics I do not view George W Bush as the best of leaders. Nor do I agree with someof the statements which the press over here have published.
However; Markus You are stepping well over the line with your tirade. Remember that this is a forum ostensibly about Toy Soldiers.
If you have differing political views to other people great, I will defend your right to hold them, just as I will defend Shawn.R.L\'s right to hold his views.
Please remember that there are rules to the forums and the moderators are tolerant people. But there are limits.
Darthfoley put it quite succinctly : \"dial it back a notch, man\".
OK
philologus
Subgenius
Originally posted by MarkusTay:
quote: (Anti-abortionists! YEEEESH! People who blow-up clinics in the name of God!)
The number of abortions in US since 1973=46,023,191
The number of deaths in abortion clinic bombings=4 (as far as I know)
Looks like the republicans are losing.
quote:why would anyone want to admit he elected a mass murderer?
The number of abortions in US since 1973=46,023,191
quote: (Anti-abortionists! YEEEESH! People who blow-up clinics in the name of God!)
The number of abortions in US since 1973=46,023,191
The number of deaths in abortion clinic bombings=4 (as far as I know)
Looks like the republicans are losing.
quote:why would anyone want to admit he elected a mass murderer?
The number of abortions in US since 1973=46,023,191
Astorderire
New member
You are a wise man.
I wrote a not so pleasant thing about aborption and politics and religion (etc) :|~ a minute ago, then coffee brought enlightement and I edited the whole disgusting thing. Right now I must tell you that I love the people on this forum ( Coffee+whisky)... so I\'m just going to snipe the minis of those I don\'t agree with
Infidel Castro
New member
I reckon there should be another section in the forums where people can air all their wild and wacky views without slapped wrists. It would keep a lot of clumsiness and schizophrenia out of the usual forum places and prevent the need for moderation almost entirely (if people were clever enough to use the facility - a big ask lol). We could all go hammers and tongs at each other lol
Enough of the sensitivity...welcome to CMON XXX! The X-rated argument pages
Arnie is still a bell end.
Enough of the sensitivity...welcome to CMON XXX! The X-rated argument pages
Arnie is still a bell end.
It was 2AM here, normally I spell quite well.
@DR - I thought DIRECT attacks weren\'t allowed (like calling AlexiZ a horse). My tirade was against a GROUP that kills people in the name of saving lives.
I notice no-one defended GW when I called him a mass murderer. We invaded two sovereign nations and removed their Gov\'t for NO VALID REASON! We invaded Afghanistan to find Bin Laden, and he wasn\'t even there! We invaded Iraq to get their \"weapons of mass destruction\", and they didn\'t even have any!
Forget I said anything. We should all just play nice and paint like good little soldiers.
I think I\'ll put on my old Bob Dillon stuff; I\'m in the mood for Eve of Destruction.
Astorderire
New member
There were very valid reasons...
Merde! Where is my coffee cup?
Lots of...
Chiotte! Where is my bottle of whisky?
But who cares? Let\'s talk about more important and less polemic topics... How is Bono? Do they still eat babies at GW? What about some naked polo?
Merde! Where is my coffee cup?
Lots of...
Chiotte! Where is my bottle of whisky?
But who cares? Let\'s talk about more important and less polemic topics... How is Bono? Do they still eat babies at GW? What about some naked polo?
vincegamer
Active member
I love this place.
I put up a post about how some foreign press picked up an actor on a comedy radio show pretending to be the governor of California saying some absolutely ridiculous things and though it was real.
(by the way - that wasn\'t meant to offend anyone (like Finn) and was supposed to be humorous - like why signs tell you not to use a cell phone while pumping gas - an interesting example of fiction being believed)
Next thing I know, we\'re shouting at each other about abortion.
The problem with the abortion debate is neither side listens to each other. There really is no common ground re the legalization.
SideA: abortion is a medical procedure the person having done should control.
SideB: the fetus is a human being who is being murdered.
The most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to promote birth control, but that is anathema to the religious right (for whom even the pill is murder).
I put up a post about how some foreign press picked up an actor on a comedy radio show pretending to be the governor of California saying some absolutely ridiculous things and though it was real.
(by the way - that wasn\'t meant to offend anyone (like Finn) and was supposed to be humorous - like why signs tell you not to use a cell phone while pumping gas - an interesting example of fiction being believed)
Next thing I know, we\'re shouting at each other about abortion.
The problem with the abortion debate is neither side listens to each other. There really is no common ground re the legalization.
SideA: abortion is a medical procedure the person having done should control.
SideB: the fetus is a human being who is being murdered.
The most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to promote birth control, but that is anathema to the religious right (for whom even the pill is murder).
Astorderire
New member
The whole topic starded to spiral because of your xenophobic sounding title, you should have write something like \"Arnold isn\'t that dumb, isn\'t he?\".
Now, on aborption, I do agree with you. Condom dispensers in High School toilets may help a lot. What amaze me is that the producers of knitting needles lobby didn\'t manage to make aborption illegal in the USA yet... yup! Sorry, too much whisky, not enought coffee.
Now, on aborption, I do agree with you. Condom dispensers in High School toilets may help a lot. What amaze me is that the producers of knitting needles lobby didn\'t manage to make aborption illegal in the USA yet... yup! Sorry, too much whisky, not enought coffee.
Just a small note, toqueville in his book shows the decadence that could come from a democratique government... To make a long story short democracy induces in people the sens that they should make politics the job of only a few, and that the masses shouldn\'t bother with it. he then goes on to show that a state were people a disconected from their political rights (duties ?) is no better then totalitarism. He uses the US gov. as an exemple because that is the place were it started to be the most noticable, but nowday it as pretty much spread to all democratique states ( oh and on a side note a rebublique can be democratique --> France).
now that the philosophie lesson is done on to biologie (I\'m a science student after all). To kill somthing it would have to be living. Bilogicaly it is not possible to define \'living\'. It is possible though to determine when somthing is dead. An embryon with a brain not fully constructed is just a mass of cells beeing organised. Abortion occurs BEFORE the brain is finnished, thus you\'re not killing anything. As to my view on the subject, I\'d rather prevent a child coming into this world (condom, abortion,whatever) then knowing I doomed sombody to have a life of misery because he is unwanted.
As for politics, well I think people tend to forget we all mean the best. Somehow people are convinced that people who don\'t hold the same believes do it because they want to be evil, ruin the economys\' country, kill children, ect... I maintain two rules when discussing politics (or I try ), assume the other only wants the best for is country, familly, ect... And critic the ideas, NOT the people. I can\'t stand people who make fun of bush, chirac, poutin, ... First of all chances are they are much smarter then you (and me), and secondly they are doing what they think is best.
now that the philosophie lesson is done on to biologie (I\'m a science student after all). To kill somthing it would have to be living. Bilogicaly it is not possible to define \'living\'. It is possible though to determine when somthing is dead. An embryon with a brain not fully constructed is just a mass of cells beeing organised. Abortion occurs BEFORE the brain is finnished, thus you\'re not killing anything. As to my view on the subject, I\'d rather prevent a child coming into this world (condom, abortion,whatever) then knowing I doomed sombody to have a life of misery because he is unwanted.
As for politics, well I think people tend to forget we all mean the best. Somehow people are convinced that people who don\'t hold the same believes do it because they want to be evil, ruin the economys\' country, kill children, ect... I maintain two rules when discussing politics (or I try ), assume the other only wants the best for is country, familly, ect... And critic the ideas, NOT the people. I can\'t stand people who make fun of bush, chirac, poutin, ... First of all chances are they are much smarter then you (and me), and secondly they are doing what they think is best.
Sorry MT, can\'t back you up on this one as I\'m half New YOrker/ half Texan lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
And as for the Democrat/Republican debate: I\'m a Libertarian and neither like nor support either of them.
I did like your line about New YOrkers not liking anyone with egos buigger than theirs though! lol lol lol lol lol
You\'ve hit the nail on the head. That\'s why NYers don\'t like Texans and vie versa
E
E-Arkham
Guest
Disclaimer: I had debated even posting on this at all, but I was feeling philosophical. However, since political internet arguments invariably turn into a case of \"I\'m right\" versus \"No, I\'m right\" (or worse, name calling and flames) I will not bother replying to responses to this post. No offense intended, but I just don\'t see the point.
Morality has no place in politics; especially not in the politics of a society that allows multiple religious and moral beliefs to exist. Laws must be created based on pragmatism or the laws will conflict with the beliefs of a portion of a society\'s population. When laws are at odds with personal beliefs and religions, this conflict will almost always breed eventual anarchy. The combination of morality in politics with a society that allows multiple belief systems is at best inefficent and at worst mutually exclusive.
The removal of morality from lawmaking does not necessarily invalidate important laws. It is practical to keep members of a society from killing one another, from robbing one another, from contributing to anarchic conditions in general. It is important for the government to be funded by taxation to provide pragmatic solutions for its citizens such as roads, retirement programs, and government services like the post office. Most laws on the books have a very practical use and thus would continue to exist.
A pragmatic approach is not inherently tied to any one political structure over another. Practicality can be applied to any social system to increase the efficiency of that system and provide broader benefits to its citizens. I am not advocating, for example, socialism or communism (especially given that the inherent flaws in these particular systems are greater than in other systems, but I digress).
When judging an issue, I request -- no, I beg people to detach themselves from knee-jerk emotional and religious responses and ask themselves, \"Does this work in a practical sense? Do I favor or oppose this only because of personal belief?\"
Kep
Morality has no place in politics; especially not in the politics of a society that allows multiple religious and moral beliefs to exist. Laws must be created based on pragmatism or the laws will conflict with the beliefs of a portion of a society\'s population. When laws are at odds with personal beliefs and religions, this conflict will almost always breed eventual anarchy. The combination of morality in politics with a society that allows multiple belief systems is at best inefficent and at worst mutually exclusive.
The removal of morality from lawmaking does not necessarily invalidate important laws. It is practical to keep members of a society from killing one another, from robbing one another, from contributing to anarchic conditions in general. It is important for the government to be funded by taxation to provide pragmatic solutions for its citizens such as roads, retirement programs, and government services like the post office. Most laws on the books have a very practical use and thus would continue to exist.
A pragmatic approach is not inherently tied to any one political structure over another. Practicality can be applied to any social system to increase the efficiency of that system and provide broader benefits to its citizens. I am not advocating, for example, socialism or communism (especially given that the inherent flaws in these particular systems are greater than in other systems, but I digress).
When judging an issue, I request -- no, I beg people to detach themselves from knee-jerk emotional and religious responses and ask themselves, \"Does this work in a practical sense? Do I favor or oppose this only because of personal belief?\"
Kep
Legacy Account
Active member
The voice of reason.
Well said.
Well said.
Astorderire
New member
No naked polo then
Infidel Castro
New member
I\'ll play naked polo! Got to dress my horse first, modest thing that he is.
Politics is a different creature isn\'t it? Commonsense is what it should be called if practiced correctly.
Politics is a different creature isn\'t it? Commonsense is what it should be called if practiced correctly.
Shawn R. L.
New member
Does such a thing exist?
philologus
Subgenius
@FrenchKid: Thanks for the reply, I agree with you completely regarding the method for debate. I think the majority of us have been able to discuss this topic respectfully. However, some topics are so naturally charged with emotion that minds will not be changed. At that point people tend to revert to anger.
As for Republic/democracy, many nations have used that title and not practiced either form of Govt.
As for Republic/democracy, many nations have used that title and not practiced either form of Govt.
I think we manage pretty well.
I have seen all sorts debated on this site, religion, politics...abortion???
I have never, ever, seen such good natured dialogue.
Even when things get heated. I think we all show a remarkable degree of tolerance of each other\'s views and more importantly, respect each other\'s right to have those views.
We all go \'off on one\' occasionally and it\'s nice to think that this is a place where one can have a rant (or three) and only get mildly ribbed for it the next day
I have seen all sorts debated on this site, religion, politics...abortion???
I have never, ever, seen such good natured dialogue.
Even when things get heated. I think we all show a remarkable degree of tolerance of each other\'s views and more importantly, respect each other\'s right to have those views.
We all go \'off on one\' occasionally and it\'s nice to think that this is a place where one can have a rant (or three) and only get mildly ribbed for it the next day
