Political Crossfire Forums

callous · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:48 pm Post subject:

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Still waiting for the link or quote or reference... anything? Simply pulling out the Nazi card won't do... you'll have to back it up.

Well, unfortunately we're not playing a board game, where each question has a completely succinct and perfect explanation waiting for it in the secret stack.

The reasons why you don't respond to everyone affiliated with a certain group by blowing half their face off?

If you don't have those reasons already as part of your inward social dialogue, you don't have the prerequisite information needed to debate politics in the first place.

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:49 pm Post subject:

You can't change people's minds even with bullets...what a sophistic pile of dog plop

Kilo Tango · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 9388 Location: D.C.

Anyone who argues the false comparison of 3000 U.S. civilian deaths vs 645,874,987,566,957,231 dead Iraqi newborns is utterly and naively missing the point.

callous · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject:

Chymical wrote: You can't change people's minds even with bullets...what a sophistic pile of dog plop

:lol:

NAB · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject:

Chymical wrote: You can't change people's minds even with bullets...what a sophistic pile of dog plop

Technically you are "changing" their minds with a bullet.

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 10232

callous wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Still waiting for the link or quote or reference... anything? Simply pulling out the Nazi card won't do... you'll have to back it up.

Well, unfortunately we're not playing a board game, where each question has a completely succinct and perfect explanation waiting for it in the secret stack.

The reasons why you don't respond to everyone affiliated with a certain group by blowing half their face off?

If you don't have those reasons already as part of your inward social dialogue, you don't have the prerequisite information needed to debate politics in the first place.

So your saying there is no Himmler comparison in this case.

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject:

NAB wrote: Chymical wrote: You can't change people's minds even with bullets...what a sophistic pile of dog plop

Technically you are "changing" their minds with a bullet.

Not really, their brains my change shape, developing one or more holes, their mental perspective however embodied in their spirit will not change, or at least not until they change it for themselves. The mind is more then the thoughts of your brain, some believe in a soul type thing which murkies the waters and....

bugger, I got caught up in the Sophistry again...Bad NAB, Bad!

NAB · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:30 pm Post subject:

Chymical wrote: NAB wrote: Chymical wrote: You can't change people's minds even with bullets...what a sophistic pile of dog plop

Technically you are "changing" their minds with a bullet.

Not really, their brains my change shape, developing one or more holes, their mental perspective however embodied in their spirit will not change, or at least not until they change it for themselves. The mind is more then the thoughts of your brain, some believe in a soul type thing which murkies the waters and....

bugger, I got caught up in the Sophistry again...Bad NAB, Bad!

How are you defining "change"? What are your tools for measurement?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :wink:

callous · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject:

Rankor and Pissing wrote: callous wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Still waiting for the link or quote or reference... anything? Simply pulling out the Nazi card won't do... you'll have to back it up.

Well, unfortunately we're not playing a board game, where each question has a completely succinct and perfect explanation waiting for it in the secret stack.

The reasons why you don't respond to everyone affiliated with a certain group by blowing half their face off?

If you don't have those reasons already as part of your inward social dialogue, you don't have the prerequisite information needed to debate politics in the first place.

So your saying there is no Himmler comparison in this case.

No, I'm saying that Himmler didn't have the prerequisite information to competently debate whether or not all people affiliated with "Islamofascist regimes" or whatever that is..... should be dealt with by lethal force exclusively....

And by that one post by sunshine about the bullet, it seems he may not either.

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:38 pm Post subject:

lol, at the end of the day though terrorism doesn't exist as an objective thing...
It's just attempting to control people politically by fear. If we went after everyone who did that
in a general WarAgainstTerrorism, the world would be really messed up and hypocritical... and
loads and loads of people would needlessly die

wait a minute...

Angelicus · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 5145

It's funny "terrorism doesn't exist" yet I can find it in websters.

Go figure.....funny how the english language is always changing.

When's webster scheduled too take that reference out?

callous · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:09 pm Post subject:

Angelicus wrote: It's funny "terrorism doesn't exist" yet I can find it in websters.

Go figure.....funny how the english language is always changing.

When's webster scheduled too take that reference out?

Its funny, conservatives can debate by going to a dictionary and saying the term terrorism exists, when they are failing to debate whether its actually a threat to the US.

Its not just funny, its hilarious,... but not too hilarious, because its also a bit sad.

Anarko-Kapitalizt · Joined: 21 May 2005 Posts: 2517

callous wrote: Angelicus wrote: It's funny "terrorism doesn't exist" yet I can find it in websters.

Go figure.....funny how the english language is always changing.

When's webster scheduled too take that reference out?

Its funny, conservatives can debate by going to a dictionary and saying the term terrorism exists, when they are failing to debate whether its actually a threat to the US.

Its not just funny, its hilarious,... but not too hilarious, because its also a bit sad.

Its also sad when people don't recognize that the US government is a terrorist organization.

callous · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject:

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: callous wrote: Angelicus wrote: It's funny "terrorism doesn't exist" yet I can find it in websters.

Go figure.....funny how the english language is always changing.

When's webster scheduled too take that reference out?

Its funny, conservatives can debate by going to a dictionary and saying the term terrorism exists, when they are failing to debate whether its actually a threat to the US.

Its not just funny, its hilarious,... but not too hilarious, because its also a bit sad.

Its also sad when people don't recognize that the US government is a terrorist organization.

Thats quite a heavy literary blow. I prefer to say completely sabotoged elitist corporate parliament.

Numb · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 273

Revenant wrote: "Terrorism doesn't exist..."

It doesn't. Acts of war exist however. People need to get over their selective interpretation of what a civilian is just so they can use buzzwords like "terrorism". Throw the cushy term "civilian" out of the window.

3000 were killed in an act of war.
So intentionally targeting civilians is OK?

Chymical · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject:

It was for the IRA...

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2668

this is the most striking of all in the OP's link. it means that you can say whatever you wish with the freedom to do so as long as radical islamists agree with you.....

say all you want its right there in front of you this needs to be dealt with, either they chill out and drop the violence or we as a nation have a right to return the violence

callous · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject:

The Newb wrote:

this is the most striking of all in the OP's link. it means that you can say whatever you wish with the freedom to do so as long as radical islamists agree with you.....

say all you want its right there in front of you this needs to be dealt with, either they chill out and drop the violence or we as a nation have a right to return the violence

I'd love meet the guy who photoshopped that phrase onto that banner. It was a fairly good job, except the letters don't have quite enough waviness.

Ozzone · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Terrorism doesn't exist...

Moot wrote: With US borders wide open and it's ports and nuclear plants basically unprotected for the last five years....one would think the terrorists would just be pouring in to wreak havoc and destruction.

Well, where are they?

Maybe they are in Gitmo:

or maybe they are in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Obviously they aren't here. We took the fight to them and implemented policies, like President Bush promised and kept, to catch them instead of sitting around on our asses and waiting for them to hit us again.

Oh I know we can do more for internal security, but it's much better to stop them long before they can attack us here than try and catch them in the act.

Which is better, fighting them with these:

or this:

'Nuff said.

callous · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject: Re: Terrorism doesn't exist...

Ozzone wrote: Moot wrote: With US borders wide open and it's ports and nuclear plants basically unprotected for the last five years....one would think the terrorists would just be pouring in to wreak havoc and destruction.

Well, where are they?

Maybe they are in Gitmo:

or maybe they are in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Obviously they aren't here. We took the fight to them and implemented policies, like President Bush promised and kept, to catch them instead of sitting around on our asses and waiting for them to hit us again.

Oh I know we can do more for internal security, but it's much better to stop them long before they can attack us here than try and catch them in the act.

Which is better, fighting them with these:

or this:

'Nuff said.

Ah yes, debating with emotionally charged, but otherwise meaningless pictures.

I thought we'd left that behind.