PDA

View Full Version : Details of the nice trip from America to Iraq



hotel
12-04-2006, 06:44 PM
To Reservists soldiers in the USL army

(Ex USA army)



http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/6926/1aw7.jpg



We present to you the details of the nice trip from America to Iraq



http://img415.imageshack.us/img415/5194/2yd8.jpg



The trip starts from USL



http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/4960/3yf8.jpg



By Plane



http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/3006/4tx4.jpg

hotel
12-04-2006, 06:45 PM
To Iraq



http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7678/5mj2.jpg



You will have a party once you come and after that you need to have a rest as you will have a packed day after


http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/8413/111wl6.jpg



Then you take your positions as per experience


On the air



http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2336/222uo8.jpg



On the ground


http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/2772/6el5.jpg

hotel
12-04-2006, 06:45 PM
http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/3024/7zn1.jpg



Or inside base for logistic support



http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8456/8kh3.jpg


You must be ready to receive stinger rockets

http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/7282/9eo7.jpg


http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9827/10oa6.jpg



On the ground you will have more troubles


You should be ready always for the mines and RPG

hotel
12-04-2006, 06:46 PM
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/790/11pj6.jpg


http://img450.imageshack.us/img450/7464/12kh5.jpg


http://img421.imageshack.us/img421/258/13bq8.jpg


http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3550/14ei7.jpg

hotel
12-04-2006, 06:47 PM
http://img450.imageshack.us/img450/6703/20ju5.jpg



Or by Coffins covered by USL flag



http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6346/21kn7.jpg


Or


If we don't find your body, we will not forget you also



http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6443/22js1.jpg



Try to reserve your seat now



http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/2655/23re3.jpg

hotel
12-04-2006, 06:48 PM
Maybe you will win a walk with Bush



http://img318.imageshack.us/img318/3528/24wz8.jpg



What beautiful backing home !!!!


http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/5513/25xr0.jpg



Have a nice trip !!!!


http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/8333/26yy7.jpg



http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/9687/27kh9.jpg

DeAtHsTaR
12-04-2006, 07:08 PM
We get it, you're an anti-war tru punx.

EMehl6
12-04-2006, 07:14 PM
Freedom isn't free.

Jojan
12-04-2006, 10:23 PM
Yes, it is not free. We have to fight the government barfore we can have freedom.

DexterWannabe
12-04-2006, 10:44 PM
"It's not about let's be punk rock and hate the government; It's about let's be punk rock and change the government"

/Fat Mike, Rock Against Bush Vol 1

Amiralanal
12-05-2006, 05:25 AM
Yes, it is not free. We have to fight the government barfore we can have freedom.

you are a fucking douche.

DexterWannabe
12-05-2006, 08:32 AM
keep your pesonal fight to the sweden-thread

Little_Miss_1565
12-05-2006, 10:56 AM
Jojan and Amiralanal are having a marital spat?

Also, this thread is pointless. And what's the USL?

DexterWannabe
12-05-2006, 11:34 AM
Jojan and Amiralanal are having a marital spat?

they hate each other, they're like little girls

Venom Symbiote
12-05-2006, 03:49 PM
Why change the Government?

We change the Government, then the Daily Show won't be half as funny.

I only wish Bush could stay on another eight years. Next we're going to get fucking Clinton or Giuliani or someone. Screw that.

Condy would rock though, hope she at least runs.

JohnnyNemesis
12-05-2006, 04:06 PM
Freedom isn't free.

Stop being a robot, robot.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 04:09 PM
Yes, it is not free. We have to fight the government barfore we can have freedom.

No, we don't have to fight the government, because we are free. Stop with this conspiracy theory shit. You're a moron. All we have to do is vote the idiots out of office. All these people complain about how the government sucks, and yadda yadda yadda, when only 60.3% of the American public voted in the '04 election. That's the highest since 1968. The election was won by less than 3%. Fucking pathetic. Quit bitching and go vote.

That's the great thing about this country, we don't have to have a fucking revolution when we want change, all we have to do is vote. It's our right, so fucking take advantage of it.

The main problem is we let all these scumbag politicians make a career out of politics, so they fall into this rut and they forget that they're serving their country, and start listening to only what their special little groups want. Vote them all out, and get some fresh meat in there, uncorrupted people without any history in politics. Then vote them out the next election, no matter how good of a job they did. You can't let them make a career out of it, that's the problem. There's not government conspiracy, they don't have total control.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 04:14 PM
Stop being a robot, robot.

I know it's cheesey and cliché, but how does saying it make me a robot? It's fucking true.

I mean, for fuck's sake, do you all believe the politics your favorite band spouts just because they say it? You might as well bend over and spread your ass cheeks. Form your own fucking opinion, don't believe something just because your favorite band or something says it. You people are the robots.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 04:15 PM
Why change the Government?

We change the Government, then the Daily Show won't be half as funny.

I only wish Bush could stay on another eight years. Next we're going to get fucking Clinton or Giuliani or someone. Screw that.

Condy would rock though, hope she at least runs.

I never thought I'd say this, but you're the only intelligent person in this thread from what I can see regarding politics.

Venom Symbiote
12-05-2006, 04:17 PM
Only because I'm not a dreadlocked establishment-hating hippy.

You should note, though, I'm not a supporter of either the Republicans or the Democrats. They both have their merits. And I think both ol' Hilary and Giuliani would make pretty decent presidents. Condaleeza would be better, though. She, weirdly enough, has more balls than Giuliani. And she's not insane enough to blame school violence on videogames like Hilary is.

Clinton knows her stuff, she's intelligent, but little things like that worry me. If she can't figure out how ludicrous blaming the media for kids shooting each other is, she has a bit of work to do.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 04:21 PM
Only because I'm not a dreadlocked establishment-hating hippy.

You should note, though, I'm not a supporter of either the Republicans or the Democrats. They both have their merits. And I think both ol' Hilary and Giuliani would make pretty decent presidents. Condaleeza would be better, though. She, weirdly enough, has more balls than Giuliani. And she's not insane enough to blame school violence on videogames like Hilary is.

Clinton knows her stuff, she's intelligent, but little things like that worry me. If she can't figure out how ludicrous blaming the media for kids shooting each other is, she has a bit of work to do.

Yeah, and obviously you think for yourself instead of just repeating what your favorite band or movie star has to say about politics. Keep up the good work, Champ.

I don't support either party either, they both suck in their own way, but I tend to have my views fall to the republican side of things. I whole-heartedly agree about Condy making a good president.

I don't think Hilary would make a good president at all though. She's essentially a socialist, and would completely fuck over the USA. Her becoming president is the type of thing I have nightmares about. I shudder at the thought of it.

opivy21
12-05-2006, 04:24 PM
I like Obama.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 04:26 PM
I like Obama.

I hope that's a joke.

0r4ng3
12-05-2006, 04:28 PM
How is that a joke? What's wrong with Obama?

JohnnyNemesis
12-05-2006, 04:29 PM
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Obama, except the fact that he's a little too smart for Politics.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 04:30 PM
How is that a joke? What's wrong with Obama?

He's been called Osama Obama by Ted Kennedy. TED FUCKING KENNEDY CALLED HIM THAT! If someone as retarded as Ted Kennedy calls you that, you obviously have serious issues.

He's also worse than Hillary in a few ways, and she would completely destroy this country.

Venom Symbiote
12-05-2006, 04:31 PM
Thing is, Clinton (Bill too, for the record) is liberal in the way that's not completely retarded. They're both moderates. Just like if you get a good moderate Republican, they're good too. Bush isn't a moderate. And no, I don't hate Bush. But he's definitely a little more to the extreme side of Western politics than in the middle.

Clinton isn't a bad socialist/liberal. Michael Moore and Co., however, are.

And Obama's running? The black dude from Chicago? I don't know much about him, but from the few interviews and stuff I've seen with him, he seems very intelligent.

I'd like to see him get in. Seems a little young though, not sure if there's much chance of it. Again, he's a good moderately-minded Bush opposer, not thinking "all war is bad all the time ever, we need to pull out nownownow" without proposing any ideas of his own.

More the Jon Stewart school of thought. Liberal, but not a raving fucktard brainwashing people with rhetoric the same way as the people he criticizes.

I'll mention again on a random note: fuck Michael Moore. In his fat manipulative white-trash ass.

0r4ng3
12-05-2006, 04:32 PM
If someone retarded calls you something bad, why is it worse than if someone smart calls you something bad? Wouldn't it be the other way around?

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 04:55 PM
If someone retarded calls you something bad, why is it worse than if someone smart calls you something bad? Wouldn't it be the other way around?

I called Ted Kennedy an idiot for his raging liberal views that make no sense, so, in that case, him calling someone Osama is very bad.

JohnnyNemesis
12-05-2006, 05:06 PM
You can't be this fucking stupid. I refuse to believe it. Drop the act.

Endymion
12-05-2006, 05:14 PM
Stop being a robot, robot.

DOES NOT COMPUTE.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 05:24 PM
You can't be this fucking stupid. I refuse to believe it. Drop the act.

I hope you're not talking to me.

Mota Boy
12-05-2006, 05:30 PM
Personally, I'm pretty sure the person who started this thread ain't American, and I get the vague feeling that his or her target wasn't the Bush administration, but the country as a whole. Either way, pointing out that people get hurt and die in wars is a sorry fuckin' excuse of a political statement. You could've told the exact same story with images of WWII, retard.

Onto talk of '08! (perhaps this should be split into a different thread)

I know two things about Barrack Obama:

1) He's a Democrat
2) He's black (apparently, when it comes to race, if you're 50% minority you round up)

Granted, I haven't taken the time to learn all that much about him, but considering that he's been in the media spotlight since his election, I'd assume I'd hear more about his accomplishments than just writing a book. He really shouldn't run, as he just isn't ready yet. Needs to marinate for a while. Also, his middle name is "Hussein" and his last name sounds like "Osama" which, as demonstrated above, tend to make people scared of him. Plus, he's black. Even if it's more of a skin tone than an identity for him, it still scares off enough people to make him politically inviable unless he's got more than just a suit and a dream.

As for him and Hillary being capable of "destroying the country", you're gonna have to provide at least a vague reason, beyond ad hominem slurs, for such a broad, damning statement. Otherwise you might as well just say "Nuh-uh!"

Personally, I've been annoyed by the talk of '08 so far. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, if only because she stirs up the sort of vitriol that would make for an awful campaign climate and make it very easy to turn her into a caricature, something at which Republicans have proven themselves to be incredibly adept (see: Al Gore, John Kerry, EMehl's reaction to Hillary) However, she's gonna be really tough to take down.

I've been annoyed at Mark Warner for consistently refusing to run, as I think he'd be great. But recently I came across Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and I'm really starting to get excited about him. Either way, the Republicans are having an even tougher problem than the Democrats at picking a good candidate (Adios, Allen; Seeya, Santorum), so at least that's some comfort.

JohnnyNemesis
12-05-2006, 05:36 PM
I hope you're not talking to me.

I was, and I meant it. You're amazingly unintelligent.

Still, I should back off because you're probably young, and I'm too lazy to back up my statements at this very moment. But oh god, stop being so fucking stupid.

Venom Symbiote
12-05-2006, 05:38 PM
Mota Boy makes some good points, there.

I'm not with Emehl on the "destroying the country" thing. I'm a little sceptical about her, but I think she has what it takes, at least in principle to make a decent enough leader. Her speeches are pretty profound.

It's just the petty little things she seems to take such issue with that worries me. She's a bit of a Lierberman in that respect.

Rag Doll
12-05-2006, 05:45 PM
Definitely agree with Mota about Obama. He needs more time to just be in Congress and whatnot before attempting to run for President. I'm not super excited about any Dems yet, but maybe that'll change. I like Hillary well enough, but I'm not sure a woman could win....and I think people will drag too much of the negative stuff about her marriage into the election.

Venom Symbiote
12-05-2006, 05:54 PM
People have a lot of respect for Hilary.

If there's to be a woman president either this decade or next, I'd say she'd probably be the most likely person.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 05:56 PM
Alright, here are some of my reasons for saying Hillary is capable of destroying the country:

1. She's essentially a socialist.
2. She is way too, uh, I can't think of the word, so I'll say distracting 'cause it's close enough, and would divide the country.
3. She would severely downsize our military.
4. Look at New York.
5. She would attempt to ban guns, I don't know how succesful she'd be, but it's not a good thing.
6. She would start more worthless govenment programs.
7. She would raise taxes.
8. Ultimately, she would make the government bigger and more powerful.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 05:59 PM
I was, and I meant it. You're amazingly unintelligent.

Still, I should back off because you're probably young, and I'm too lazy to back up my statements at this very moment. But oh god, stop being so fucking stupid.

No, I'm really not. I didn't back up what I said there, so I can understand why you're saying that, but I really can put up some viable reasons for why I think what I do.

WebDudette
12-05-2006, 06:00 PM
That's some heavy duty assuming.

Rag Doll
12-05-2006, 06:01 PM
People have a lot of respect for Hilary.

If there's to be a woman president either this decade or next, I'd say she'd probably be the most likely person.

I definitely agree. But I'm not really sure a woman would get elected.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 06:02 PM
That's some heavy duty assuming.

No it's not. Look at what she supports and stands for.

Mota Boy
12-05-2006, 06:32 PM
Alright, here are some of my reasons for saying Hillary is capable of destroying the country:

1. She's essentially a socialist.
2. She is way too, uh, I can't think of the word, so I'll say distracting 'cause it's close enough, and would divide the country.
3. She would severely downsize our military.
4. Look at New York.
5. She would attempt to ban guns, I don't know how succesful she'd be, but it's not a good thing.
6. She would start more worthless govenment programs.
7. She would raise taxes.
8. Ultimately, she would make the government bigger and more powerful.
I suppose I can't complain too much. I did say "at least a vague reason" and you've certainly delivered.

Little_Miss_1565
12-05-2006, 06:33 PM
EMehl, you're not a robot, quit talking like one. If someone you don't like doesn't like someone, wouldn't that mean you should look closer at them? Are you really going to trust Ted Kennedy's opinion when you've said you don't like him so much? The enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all. And also, "Look at New York?" Yeah, our blue state liberal paradise of amazingness. I fucking love this state and this city. She's going extremely moderate, she wouldn't do dick to the military, and that is a bunch of conservative scare-tactic parrot bullshit.

I love Obama. Before he was even a politician, I watched his speech when he was a nobody at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. I wept with the sort of hysterical joy I'd only before felt during "The Mercy Seat" when I saw Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds live, and the only time since was during "Ghost Dance" when Patti Smith sang it at the last ever CBGB's show. He's way to smart for politics, which is precisely why American politics needs him so badly. He can speak to people. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert address why it wouldn't hurt the Daily Show if someone like Obama was elected in their interview with Rolling Stone--"His father was a goat herder!"

The effect it would have on comedy is a pretty weak tack to take. Venom, The Daily Show was even funnier during the Clinton years because we could actually cry with laughter at how ridiculous things are, and not with anger and fear at how ridiculous these people are.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 06:37 PM
EMehl, you're not a robot, quit talking like one. If someone you don't like doesn't like someone, wouldn't that mean you should look closer at them? Are you really going to trust Ted Kennedy's opinion when you've said you don't like him so much? The enemy of my enemy is my friend, after all.

Alright, obviously everyone found me to be serious in my Ted Kennedy-Obama comments. I was trying to add a little humor in, because Ted Kennedy is a drunk, and Obama is, well, Obama. As you've said he's smart as shit. I was trying to be funny, I apologize for coming off as stupid. I still don't understand why you're all calling me a robot though...

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 06:38 PM
I suppose I can't complain too much. I did say "at least a vague reason" and you've certainly delivered.

It's a little more than vague reasoning. Would you like me to write a book about it?

0r4ng3
12-05-2006, 06:39 PM
Part of me wants to believe that you were joking, another part of me thinks you're backtracking. Oh well, whatevers.

People are saying you talk like a robot because, apparently, you're just taking common wisdom and regurgitating it, without much thought. At least, that's my take on it.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 06:45 PM
Part of me wants to believe that you were joking, another part of me thinks you're backtracking. Oh well, whatevers.

People are saying you talk like a robot because, apparently, you're just taking common wisdom and regurgitating it, without much thought. At least, that's my take on it.

It really was a joke. What common wisdom am I taking and regurgitating?

Little_Miss_1565
12-05-2006, 06:50 PM
It really was a joke. What common wisdom am I taking and regurgitating?

Well, I wouldn't call it "wisdom," but you ARE sounding like a puppet of a corrupt regime.


1. She's essentially a socialist.
2. She is way too, uh, I can't think of the word, so I'll say distracting 'cause it's close enough, and would divide the country.
3. She would severely downsize our military.
4. Look at New York.
5. She would attempt to ban guns, I don't know how succesful she'd be, but it's not a good thing.
6. She would start more worthless govenment programs.
7. She would raise taxes.
8. Ultimately, she would make the government bigger and more powerful.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 06:55 PM
Well, I wouldn't call it "wisdom," but you ARE sounding like a puppet of a corrupt regime.

Puppet of a corrupt regime? Please. I'm neither a puppet, nor is the Bush administration a "regime". In order for it to be a regime, he'd have to have be a dictator of some sort, and he's not coming back next election, therefore, it can't be a regime. Also, last time I checked we elect our leaders.

As for the puppet part, definately not. I've formed my own opinion based on what I've read and seen. Sorry if my thoughts don't match or conform to yours.

If you'd like me to elaborate on my Hillary Clinton rant, give me until tomorrow, because my brain is fried from studying for finals.

Little_Miss_1565
12-05-2006, 07:01 PM
As for the puppet part, definately not. I've formed my own opinion based on what I've read and seen. Sorry if my thoughts don't match or conform to yours.

Oh, please. I don't particularly care for Hillary Clinton. But I've lived first-hand under her leadership in New York, which is something you haven't done. Say what you want about her personally, but she is a damn good senator because she gets shit done and serves her public.

About what you said about "regime"....from dictionary.com:

re·gime [ruh-zheem, rey-, or, sometimes, -jeem]
–noun
1. a mode or system of rule or government: a dictatorial regime.
2. a ruling or prevailing system.
3. a government in power.
4. the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power

Revolver-2005?
12-05-2006, 07:09 PM
7. She would raise taxes.

As opposed to Bush's plan which is to lower taxes...and then run us all into the poor house.

EMehl6
12-05-2006, 07:09 PM
Oh, please. I don't particularly care for Hillary Clinton. But I've lived first-hand under her leadership in New York, which is something you haven't done. Say what you want about her personally, but she is a damn good senator because she gets shit done and serves her public.

About what you said about "regime"....from dictionary.com:

re·gime [ruh-zheem, rey-, or, sometimes, -jeem]
–noun
1. a mode or system of rule or government: a dictatorial regime.
2. a ruling or prevailing system.
3. a government in power.
4. the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power

Well, you got me on the regime part, but that definition also leaves open that regimes aren't necessarily bad, but just a government administration.

As for Hillary, I experienced her leadership, but, I don't agree with her politics. I just don't see how raising taxes, abolishing guns, national medicare, just overall enlargement of the federal government is going to help anything. Those are all things she would like to do. Forgive me for being sort of vague, but I'm tired and don't feel like elaborating at the moment.

P.S.: Can you wait until tomorrow and give me a raft of shit about my national medicare statement, becuase I don't have any arguing energy left in me today.

Venom Symbiote
12-05-2006, 07:14 PM
The effect it would have on comedy is a pretty weak tack to take. Venom, The Daily Show was even funnier during the Clinton years because we could actually cry with laughter at how ridiculous things are, and not with anger and fear at how ridiculous these people are.

Oh, you thought I was serious...

It's almost cute.

Little_Miss_1565
12-05-2006, 07:18 PM
Well, you got me on the regime part, but that definition also leaves open that regimes aren't necessarily bad, but just a government administration.

As for Hillary, I experienced her leadership, but, I don't agree with her politics. I just don't see how raising taxes, abolishing guns, national medicare, just overall enlargement of the federal government is going to help anything. Those are all things she would like to do. Forgive me for being sort of vague, but I'm tired and don't feel like elaborating at the moment.

P.S.: Can you wait until tomorrow and give me a raft of shit about my national medicare statement, becuase I don't have any arguing energy left in me today.

Yes, which is why I specified CORRUPT regime.

No, I can't wait, so come back tomorrow when you can put together a coherent statement. There's the difference between what someone might like to do and what they're actually going to accomplish. I'd love to see everyone in GOD grow up and quit picking stupid flamewars with eachother over retarded shit like who's the better drummer---RON OR ATOM? Am I going to see an end to it while I'm a moderator? Not bloody likely. Like you said, we have the power to check our leaders. And yet you talk like Clinton would have carte blanche to take all my paycheck and force me to have affordable healthcare. Would Clinton somehow have magic powers and make everyone suddenly roll over and let her do whatever she wants?

Little_Miss_1565
12-05-2006, 07:19 PM
Oh, you thought I was serious...

It's almost cute.

No, not serious. Just not half as funny as you seem to think.

Venom Symbiote
12-05-2006, 07:21 PM
Who said it was funny? :confused:

I must've missed that part.

Little_Miss_1565
12-05-2006, 08:39 PM
You're not dumb. What's with the verbal diarrhea, then?

Mota Boy
12-05-2006, 09:08 PM
She's going extremely moderate, she wouldn't do dick to the military, and that is a bunch of conservative scare-tactic parrot bullshit.
But a very powerful one. Hillary's already been skewed so much that no matter what she tries to run as, no matter what legislative record she can point to, I think people have already made up their minds about her.


I love Obama... He's way to smart for politics, which is precisely why American politics needs him so badly. He can speak to people.
But a smart man does not a good politician make. I'll try to hunt down and dig up the specific examples if you want, but some of our smartest Presidents have also been some of our worst. Also, just because a man is smart doesn't mean he's right. A perfect example is the Supreme Court, which is filled with some of the most brilliant minds in the country (graduated first in their class from Harvard and Yale), and yet they constantly disagree.

Trusting that Obama's smart, he's still unproven, and I don't feel that a few years in the Senate will produce enough of a record for me to feel comfortable voting for him. Seriously, he's intelligent and charismatic, but it's gonna take a good deal more than that to convince me to support him as the Leader of the Free World. Perhaps more important though, I don't trust him to win.

EM - I was hoping for more of a thoughtful analysis and less of a list of AM radio talking points. I could go down the list, but it'd take too long. You didn't mention anything that she's done while Senator that would back up any of your points. If you'd said "Look at legislation X or quote Y" then you'd have some basis, but some of your arguments are patently ridiculous. She wouldn't "severely downsize" the military. At at time when we're actively waging one, possibly two wars, it wouldn't happen. She's a smart woman, and she knows that the military is nigh untouchable at this point. As for "attempting to ban guns"... that's just... I don't even know how to respond to that. No, just no. And "Look at New York""? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Essentially, you just list a lot of things that really need to be explained but aren't.

Little_Miss_1565
12-05-2006, 09:41 PM
But a very powerful one. Hillary's already been skewed so much that no matter what she tries to run as, no matter what legislative record she can point to, I think people have already made up their minds about her.

I very much agree, as do many in the DNP, and I hope that enough do to keep her from the nomination. What I disagreed with most in this topic was EMehl's slagging of her job as senator.

I don't really care about Obama being right on everything necessarily. We've already got a president who thinks he's always infallibly right, and here's a guy who I think would be wise enough to learn from what he didn't get right. I'd like to see how he grows as a politician. But so far, he's the only of the candidate talks that I've had any feelings at all about.

wheelchairman
12-06-2006, 02:22 AM
I give 1565 check and mate for that little regim tactic there. LOL stupidity uncovered!

Vera
12-06-2006, 04:40 AM
I like how these threads can develop from completely dumb ones to ones worth reading.

Oxygene
12-06-2006, 01:11 PM
I just generally like the notion, that some people think you are actually free to choose whoever you please, because you can make a choice between two right wing candidates. How the hell can you even believe to be free, when some of the people you all most see fit to be president (condoleeeeeeeeeeza, hillary, this obama guy) can't even THINK of winning office, because they are blacks or women or both? You aren't free, and this freedom isn't free bullshit is just plain dumb.
Don't get me wrong, this is how all democracies work (my country too), you're fooled into thinking you have a right to choose. Yeah you have a right to choose, between between coke or diet coke with your big mac and large fries, but you can't choose supersize, you can't choose a quarter pounder, and you DEFINATLY can't choose to go to burger king, let alone a decent restaurant. As for the "practically a socialist" take a look at the top 10 list of countries, which are the best to live in (I seem to recall a list on wikipedia) and check to see howmany of them have social democratic governments like sweden and norway and shit.. you know, places that are high up north, and living standards are so high, they actually HEAT the streets. Jeeze, that's a big con.. we don't need a socialist president, because the homeless guys there don't freeze to death, but just lie down on the asphalt which is heated :) Unlike your war veterans, who provied that not-free freedom you are talking about, who are abandoned by you, after they've suffered for your freedom, let them fucking freeze to death on the streets. Yeah that seems like a sound reason
Cmon.. be a bit more open minded. Political systems, and ideoligies and trends are like knives.. you can use them for cutting bread, and feeding, or you can use them to slaughter newborn children.

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 01:44 PM
Alright, I'm back, and my brain is fully functioning today. I'd like to apologize for the vague and unsupported arguments I gave yesterday. I've been studying for finals this week, and my brain has been fried. I decided to take a day off and recooperate. I don't really care if you believe me or not, but I speak the truth.

Anyway, back to the discussion. About the medicare statement I made yesterday: National medicare, first and foremost, is the essence of socialism, which I really don't believe is a very well-functioning form of government. Just look at China. They could be a very rich and prosperous nation, but it's people are for the most part dirt poor, and the economy is pretty much in shambles. I also don't believe the American public should be made to shell out a hefty part of their paycheck to be put together and sent out to everyone else in the country, with only a small portion coming back to you. I think we should get to keep the money we work hard for and do with it what we want, not have the government decide what's going to be done with it. They take enough money from us as it is. If you'd like me to go into further detail, let me know. For now I'm going to move on to what I said about Hillary Clinton.

I would like to say one good thing about her first. As much as I am oppossed to her views, I do have to say speaking out on what John Kerry so eloquently(yes, that's sarcasm) said about the troops was very admirable. I didn't expect that from her.

Now on to why I opposse her views. This is a woman who in her first term as a senator missed her first vote. Now you may just brush this off and think, "everyone makes mistakes". Yes, that's true, but being a senator is a great responsiblity. If you're going to make a mistake, don't let it be that big.

She sways way too easily, and cannot take a firm stand on things, she's a "flip-flopper", if you will. Here's an example: She hasn't been able to stand firmly on whether or not she supports the War on Terror. One minute she says something like this; "Our challenge is much more pervasive than it would be if we were just facing one enemy in one place. [Instead there is] the Middle East, Iraq, North Korea, Iran. There's a relatively long list that we believe are linked to the al Qaeda network in the Philippines, in Indonesia and in Yemen and other places. That makes it very clear that this is a global network." and the next, something like this; "...I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war." Make up your mind Hillary, please.

She stand for a stronger United Nations, which, I see as already dead. The United Nations really no longer serve a purpose, and are way too weak. They haven't done any good in years, why would we want to strengthen them? We saw how good they did on trying to get Saddam to disarm. They no longer sway anyone, and they're just weak and pointless. There is no need to strengthen them. It needs to be disbanded.

She opposses drilling in Alaska for oil, in the largest oil reserve in the United States, that would no doubt siginficantly reduce our oil problems. Now I know some of you will say, but the oil reserve is in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR), and that's all good and well, but you remember the Alaskan Pipeline? Everyone was so worried that this project would kill off the dwindling Moose population, and now the Pipeline is essentially a breeding ground for them and there are more of those bastards than we know what to do with. I see no problems.

She opposses education vouchers for private schools, and says she does so because it "siphons money away from our underfunded public schools". So she wants to keep kids in these underfunded schools and learn nothing? I'm all for fixing our public schools, but if a parent wants to pull their child out of an underfunded, low-scoring school and send their child somewhere that will be able to learn, why should we not allow that? It makes no sense to me.

This is also a woman who blamed teenage violence on video games, and said that some are a "major threat to morality". She also had this to say: "Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them. This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it’s OK to diss people because they are a woman, they’re a different color or they’re from a different place." I'm not even sure what to say about that. I mean, my God, it's a damn videogame. She might as well say that movies with this kind of behavior have the same kind of effect. It madness. Besides, the video games are rated "M" for a reason. I know kids can still get a hold of them, but that's where the role of a parent comes in. We don't need the government telling us what video games we can and can't play. It's when she says things like this that I wonder if she is 100% mentally stable.

She also is for other things that I oppose, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, etc, but those issues are more a matter of opinion and such, and I feel I've already said enough. I think if I were touch on the other issues, there'd be a lot of fighting, and I don't feel like dealing with that.

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 01:54 PM
I just generally like the notion, that some people think you are actually free to choose whoever you please, because you can make a choice between two right wing candidates. How the hell can you even believe to be free, when some of the people you all most see fit to be president (condoleeeeeeeeeeza, hillary, this obama guy) can't even THINK of winning office, because they are blacks or women or both? You aren't free, and this freedom isn't free bullshit is just plain dumb.
Don't get me wrong, this is how all democracies work (my country too), you're fooled into thinking you have a right to choose. Yeah you have a right to choose, between between coke or diet coke with your big mac and large fries, but you can't choose supersize, you can't choose a quarter pounder, and you DEFINATLY can't choose to go to burger king, let alone a decent restaurant. As for the "practically a socialist" take a look at the top 10 list of countries, which are the best to live in (I seem to recall a list on wikipedia) and check to see howmany of them have social democratic governments like sweden and norway and shit.. you know, places that are high up north, and living standards are so high, they actually HEAT the streets. Jeeze, that's a big con.. we don't need a socialist president, because the homeless guys there don't freeze to death, but just lie down on the asphalt which is heated :) Unlike your war veterans, who provied that not-free freedom you are talking about, who are abandoned by you, after they've suffered for your freedom, let them fucking freeze to death on the streets. Yeah that seems like a sound reason
Cmon.. be a bit more open minded. Political systems, and ideoligies and trends are like knives.. you can use them for cutting bread, and feeding, or you can use them to slaughter newborn children.

That was a total heap of incoherent bullshit. Yes, those people can think about being elected, because they do have a shot, and we are free. If enough people vote for them, they'll get elected. That's how it works, no one can stop that.

That thing, I guess analogy, about the Burger King and McDonald's, what the fuck was that? It made absolutely no sense at all.

I really don't know why you say we abandon our veterens, who fought and died for our FREEDOM. I mean, for Christ's sake, we have a fucking day dedicated to honoring them. That sure sounds like abandonment to me...

As for your heated streets, that's great, I'm happy for you, you don't have to shovel snow, congratulations. Besides the not having to clear roads, what purpose does that serve? We spend our money on more important things than heated streets. Oh, and if you look at the most powerful nation in the world, who is it? I forget. Wait, it's the United States, isn't it. Yes, I do believe it is. Take your socialism and shove it up your ass.

Little_Miss_1565
12-06-2006, 02:08 PM
I tried reading your "argument," but I had to stop and then dismiss anything you had to say, because you said that China is a socialist nation and thus look at it as an example of the failure of all socialism. China is communist. Sweden and Canada have much more socialist leanings. And look how badly they're failing. :rolleyes:

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 02:17 PM
I tried reading your "argument," but I had to stop and then dismiss anything you had to say, because you said that China is a socialist nation and thus look at it as an example of the failure of all socialism. China is communist. Sweden and Canada have much more socialist leanings. And look how badly they're failing. :rolleyes:

You had to stop reading and dismiss everything I said because I used one bad example? China is communist, but has a socialist leaning economy. If you stopped reading after the socialism thing, you missed 95% of my argument.

Oxygene
12-06-2006, 02:38 PM
That was a total heap of incoherent bullshit. Yes, those people can think about being elected, because they do have a shot, and we are free. If enough people vote for them, they'll get elected. That's how it works, no one can stop that.

What percentage of the votes cast went to George W. Bush and John Kerry in nov 04? Were they at that point in time the two best candidates for the office of the president of the US in the world? I rest my case


That thing, I guess analogy, about the Burger King and McDonald's, what the fuck was that? It made absolutely no sense at all.

yes it did let me simplifyt for you.. you have no real alternatives, you choose from what the powers that be allow you to chose from. Take it or leave it...


I really don't know why you say we abandon our veterens, who fought and died for our FREEDOM. I mean, for Christ's sake, we have a fucking day dedicated to honoring them. That sure sounds like abandonment to me...

Yeah holding days in honor, and ribbons and flags mean allot.. bullshit they mean jack when those veterans are begging in the streets, and noone gives a fuck about them.. you might actually be able to feed me this shit had I not lived in maryland..


As for your heated streets, that's great, I'm happy for you, you don't have to shovel snow, congratulations. Besides the not having to clear roads, what purpose does that serve? We spend our money on more important things than heated streets. Oh, and if you look at the most powerful nation in the world, who is it? I forget. Wait, it's the United States, isn't it. Yes, I do believe it is. Take your socialism and shove it up your ass.

Since when? For how long? Since WWII? let's be generous.. since WWI? Let's be even more generous.. a 100 years? That's jackshit compared to how long some other nations/empires have held that title. So far in retrospect of civilazation, the US is nothing more, than some gambling junkie on a winning streak at black jack. It's a drop in the bucket, if you compare it to the influence of some of the other countries (look at what that sin studly or whoever said in the taxes post). How long before china catches up? 10 years? 20? By the way what good is being the most powerful nation of the world, if the nation doesn't serve it's people?
BTW those other nations, they also spend their money, on those "more important" things, like a potent military and what not. Plus they have money to spend on "less important" things, like educating their young people, taking care of their old people, providing public health care at levels in range or even sometimes exceeding private healthcare in the US to ALL people, and they also have money left for heating the streets. They pay ALOT more taxes then you (shit like atleast 33%) but at the end of the day, they made more money (before and after taxes) than you, and they didn't even have to outsource jobs and exploit child labour to do it... Oh and the people live happier, healthier, and richer than you. And they do this with out destroying the enviroment they (and we all) live in...

I guess this is the sort of thing you can't relate to

wheelchairman
12-06-2006, 02:48 PM
And none of you seem to know the difference between a socialist, communist, and social liberal economy. Or mixed in some cases.

None of the above mentioned were communist economies. China is a classic example of an unfreezing socialist economy. And Canada and Sweden are cookie cut social liberal economies. Also known as welfare states. They lack the whole command economy thing.

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 02:54 PM
Since when? For how long? Since WWII? let's be generous.. since WWI? Let's be even more generous.. a 100 years? That's jackshit compared to how long some other nations/empires have held that title. So far in retrospect of civilazation, the US is nothing more, than some gambling junkie on a winning streak at black jack. It's a drop in the bucket, if you compare it to the influence of some of the other countries (look at what that sin studly or whoever said in the taxes post). How long before china catches up? 10 years? 20? By the way what good is being the most powerful nation of the world, if the nation doesn't serve it's people?
BTW those other nations, they also spend their money, on those "more important" things, like a potent military and what not. Plus they have money to spend on "less important" things, like educating their young people, taking care of their old people, providing public health care at levels in range or even sometimes exceeding private healthcare in the US to ALL people, and they also have money left for heating the streets. They pay ALOT more taxes then you (shit like atleast 33%) but at the end of the day, they made more money (before and after taxes) than you, and they didn't even have to outsource jobs and exploit child labour to do it... Oh and the people live happier, healthier, and richer than you. And they do this with out destroying the enviroment they (and we all) live in...

I guess this is the sort of thing you can't relate to

The United States has been a powerful country since the late 1800's. I don't believe I said anywhere that education and taking care of people were "less important things". Stop putting words in my mouth.

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 02:55 PM
And none of you seem to know the difference between a socialist, communist, and social liberal economy. Or mixed in some cases.

None of the above mentioned were communist economies. China is a classic example of an unfreezing socialist economy. And Canada and Sweden are cookie cut social liberal economies. Also known as welfare states. They lack the whole command economy thing.

I said China had a socialist economy.

wheelchairman
12-06-2006, 02:59 PM
I said China had a socialist economy.

My post was largely directed to 1565, who I expect can take a critique and learn from it. Your mistake is believing that Hillary is a socialist. One person can be forgiven for not knowing the vocabulary of a remote subject.

But calling Hillary a socialist suggests that you have no idea what a socialist is.

Oxygene
12-06-2006, 03:04 PM
The United States has been a powerful country since the late 1800's. I don't believe I said anywhere that education and taking care of people were "less important things". Stop putting words in my mouth.

It's nice how you've chosen to just ignore the rest of the arguments.. you're a real champ! :cool:

Ok so let's say the US has been a powerful country for 200 years? So what it's still jack shit compared to the likes of the roman empire, or england, or france. zip, zilch, nada, fuck-o.
Well you said and I quote "We spend our money on more important things".. well looking at the results, those more important things are most definatly not educating your young people, and providing humane healthcare to your sick. It's simple logic.. if you look at the number of nuclear weapons the US army has, then you'll see where the resources have been redirected. Besides your government doesn't want a well educated public.. they're fine with what they have. You're a good example, of how undereducation pays off for the government ;) sorry.. that was just too easy =)

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 03:15 PM
It's nice how you've chosen to just ignore the rest of the arguments.. you're a real champ! :cool:

Ok so let's say the US has been a powerful country for 200 years? So what it's still jack shit compared to the likes of the roman empire, or england, or france. zip, zilch, nada, fuck-o.
Well you said and I quote "We spend our money on more important things".. well looking at the results, those more important things are most definatly not educating your young people, and providing humane healthcare to your sick. It's simple logic.. if you look at the number of nuclear weapons the US army has, then you'll see where the resources have been redirected. Besides your government doesn't want a well educated public.. they're fine with what they have. You're a good example, of how undereducation pays off for the government ;) sorry.. that was just too easy =)

Oh how very clever of you. I'm actually in college right now studying mechanical engineering, so clearly I'm not stupid.

Anyway, as for addressing your other statements, here you go:


What percentage of the votes cast went to George W. Bush and John Kerry in nov 04? Were they at that point in time the two best candidates for the office of the president of the US in the world? I rest my case

Have you heard of the electoral college?


yes it did let me simplifyt for you.. you have no real alternatives, you choose from what the powers that be allow you to chose from. Take it or leave it...

What do you mean I have no real alternatives? My ass. Name any one thing, and I'm sure I can name at least 2 alternatives for it in this country. Please, this isn't the USSR.


Yeah holding days in honor, and ribbons and flags mean allot.. bullshit they mean jack when those veterans are begging in the streets, and noone gives a fuck about them.. you might actually be able to feed me this shit had I not lived in maryland..

I really don't know were you got the "all these verterans out beggining in the streets" thing from. I've yet to hear of this as a huge problem, like you're saying. Every country has homeless people, like it or not. It's terrible, and no one wants it to happen, but it's a very hard thing to control. Trust me, it upsets me that there are homeless people out on the streets begging for food and whatnot, and I donate to charities to help that. But some of these people just don't want to put forth the effort to go out and get a job, be that at McDonald's, WalMart, whereever. Sure, it's not glamorous, but it's a start.

On a completely off topic note, Maryland sucks.

Oxygene
12-06-2006, 03:35 PM
Oh how very clever of you. I'm actually in college right now studying mechanical engineering, so clearly I'm not stupid.

So who gives a shit? That was obviously just taking a lowjab (I knew you were in college, I didn't think you had to take midterms for your G.E.D.) but overall, I'm talking about how well average joe is educated in the US.. or how undereducated they are.. check out a segment of jay walking if you don't believe me.. on the tonight show


Anyway, as for addressing your other statements, here you go:
Sorry, but I just loved that elegant sidestep...


Have you heard of the electoral college?

Yeah, isn't that the part of the american democracy that absolutley ensures, the poor will have nothing to say in who actually becomes president?


What do you mean I have no real alternatives? My ass. Name any one thing, and I'm sure I can name at least 2 alternatives for it in this country. Please, this isn't the USSR.

George W. Bush in 04... btw the USSR doesn't exist anymore. Don't they teach that in school overthere? :)


I really don't know were you got the "all these verterans out beggining in the streets" thing from. I've yet to hear of this as a huge problem, like you're saying. Every country has homeless people, like it or not. It's terrible, and no one wants it to happen, but it's a very hard thing to control. Trust me, it upsets me that there are homeless people out on the streets begging for food and whatnot, and I donate to charities to help that. But some of these people just don't want to put forth the effort to go out and get a job, be that at McDonald's, WalMart, whereever. Sure, it's not glamorous, but it's a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Homeless_Veterans
200K homeless veterans.. hm... and actually no, not every country has homeless people, I've lived in a country with out homeless people (not that I'd want to live under that regime EVER again, but there are countries out there with virtually 0 homelessness, that are developed countries, but I'm just not gonna research), but that homelessness is a must is bullshit. I know some of these people just don't go out and get jobs, but those aren't the money that a "socialist" government would spend money on.



On a completely off topic note, Maryland sucks.

I'm sincere when I say this, it's not just to piss you off, but MD rules :) Esp washingtonian suburbia :D

Sin Studly
12-06-2006, 03:52 PM
List of things I've learned from this thread

1. Hilary Clinton shouldn't be President because she's female.
2. American politics are more depressing than ours, and our politics evolved from "who's hidden the most shivs".
3. People with those south park avatars are assholes and shouldn't be argued with.
4. People who argue with them with any more depth than a glib remark dismissing them on basis of gender, race, religion or nationality are assholes too.

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 04:52 PM
So who gives a shit? That was obviously just taking a lowjab (I knew you were in college, I didn't think you had to take midterms for your G.E.D.) but overall, I'm talking about how well average joe is educated in the US.. or how undereducated they are.. check out a segment of jay walking if you don't believe me.. on the tonight show

I know it was a lowjab, I was just being a smart ass:) Point taken about Jay Leno lol.


Sorry, but I just loved that elegant sidestep...

Haha, glad you liked that.



Yeah, isn't that the part of the american democracy that absolutley ensures, the poor will have nothing to say in who actually becomes president?

Not last time I checked. How exactly does the electoral college exclude the poor? It give the electoral votes to the candidate who recieved the most votes in that state.


George W. Bush in 04... btw the USSR doesn't exist anymore. Don't they teach that in school overthere? :)

Yes, I know the USSR doesn't exist anymore smartass.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_for_Homeless_Veterans
200K homeless veterans.. hm... and actually no, not every country has homeless people, I've lived in a country with out homeless people (not that I'd want to live under that regime EVER again, but there are countries out there with virtually 0 homelessness, that are developed countries, but I'm just not gonna research), but that homelessness is a must is bullshit. I know some of these people just don't go out and get jobs, but those aren't the money that a "socialist" government would spend money on.

Wow. I didn't know that. That's terrible. I didn't say homelessness is a must, I just said it's kind of difficult to eliminate, not that it's impossible.



I'm sincere when I say this, it's not just to piss you off, but MD rules :) Esp washingtonian suburbia :D

Haha, it's so boring here. I live in Carroll County though, that might be why...

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 04:54 PM
List of things I've learned from this thread3. People with those south park avatars are assholes and shouldn't be argued with.


How am I an "asshole that shouldn't be argued with"? You're not mister clean and proper yourself.

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 04:55 PM
My post was largely directed to 1565, who I expect can take a critique and learn from it. Your mistake is believing that Hillary is a socialist. One person can be forgiven for not knowing the vocabulary of a remote subject.

But calling Hillary a socialist suggests that you have no idea what a socialist is.

I know what a socialist is, and I didn't call her a full blown socialist, I said she supports the essence of socialism, or something along those lines.

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 05:45 PM
Hilary Clinton sux! YEEEEEAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!

I don't like Hillary Clinton either, but do you know anything about her at all? Or is this just you making another stupid, unbacked, unbackable statement?

calichix
12-06-2006, 06:56 PM
this was all very disrespectful.

coke_a_holic
12-06-2006, 08:01 PM
I don't like Hillary Clinton either, but do you know anything about her at all? Or is this just you making another stupid, unbacked, unbackable statement?

Where are you from in Maryland? It's always nice to find out I'm not the only person on the forums from the state.

I live in Kensington, like 8 miles north of the DC border.

EMehl6
12-06-2006, 08:08 PM
I live in Westminster. It's about a half hour outside of Baltimore.

Little_Miss_1565
12-06-2006, 08:24 PM
My post was largely directed to 1565, who I expect can take a critique and learn from it.

Yes, thanks. I still think of China as same China my grandmother wouldn't go back to. It's not anymore.

Venom Symbiote
12-06-2006, 11:22 PM
Meh. It pretty-much is.

Paint_It_Black
12-06-2006, 11:23 PM
Freedom isn't free.

Freedom costs a buck-oh-five.

wheelchairman
12-07-2006, 12:07 AM
I know what a socialist is, and I didn't call her a full blown socialist, I said she supports the essence of socialism, or something along those lines.
And again you'd be wrong.

Little_Miss_1565
12-07-2006, 05:31 AM
Freedom costs a buck-oh-five.

FTFW.

Jeezus.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 07:30 AM
And again you'd be wrong.

Not really. She supports national medicare, which is in essence socialism. It takes money from everyone, and then divides it equally among citizens.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 07:30 AM
Freedom costs a buck-oh-five.

Hahahaha. Team America was a great movie.

Little_Miss_1565
12-07-2006, 07:51 AM
Not really. She supports national medicare, which is in essence socialism. It takes money from everyone, and then divides it equally among citizens.

No. It is one idea that has vaguely socialist associations. It is not "in essence socialism."

JohnnyNemesis
12-07-2006, 08:17 AM
I thought I was being too harsh and kinda stupid by being so dismissive of EMehl6.

Then. ,the motherfucker uses about ten posts and god knows how many paragraphs to prove me right: he's fucking scary stupid.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 08:28 AM
I thought I was being too harsh and kinda stupid by being so dismissive of EMehl6.

Then. ,the motherfucker uses about ten posts and god knows how many paragraphs to prove me right: he's fucking scary stupid.

What the fuck are you talking about? Because I have a different opinion on something than you, I'm suddenly stupid?

Paint_It_Black
12-07-2006, 08:42 AM
I thought I was being too harsh

I thought so too, but then I got bored and stopped reading. I guess I'll never know.

Sin Studly
12-07-2006, 09:22 AM
Again, you're all assholes for treating him like a person. A dumb person, but a person nevertheless.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 11:37 AM
I'm sorry, I just don't understand how anything you say is more relevant than what anyone else says.

Paint_It_Black
12-07-2006, 01:25 PM
It's not necessarily, he's just earned the right to be listened to.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 01:27 PM
Yeah, because he has the same left-wing political views as everyone else. Which is fine, but God-forbid someone have a different opinion!

wheelchairman
12-07-2006, 01:35 PM
Yeah, because he has the same left-wing political views as everyone else. Which is fine, but God-forbid someone have a different opinion!
Get off your high horse. There are right wing people we listen to here. Betty for instance. It has to do with not being utterly incompetent.

Hillary is the essence of socialism? (or represents it). Christ.

1565, China was a socialist economy when your grandmother left as well. A communist economy society refers to the theoretical utopia most socialist economies claim to be heading for.
But yes China is much different. It's probably nicer to live there now than under the revolution or during the Cultural War or whatever it was called. Christ.

ermdevi@tion
12-07-2006, 01:49 PM
1565, China was a socialist economy when your grandmother left as well.

I would've thought the means of production in a socialist economy must, by definition, be democratically controlled?

Edit: Obviously I'm assuming they weren't in Maoist China...maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

Venom Symbiote
12-07-2006, 01:55 PM
Mao was such a gangstah.

wheelchairman
12-07-2006, 01:58 PM
I would've thought the means of production in a socialist economy must, by definition, be democratically controlled?

Edit: Obviously I'm assuming they weren't in Maoist China...maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

I always thought it best to use the definition of socialism where the communist party is in power, and has set a strategy towards communism. This way we can point to the concrete examples, whether or not you agree with them is another thing.

Paint_It_Black
12-07-2006, 02:29 PM
Yeah, because he has the same left-wing political views as everyone else. Which is fine, but God-forbid someone have a different opinion!

Not exactly, no. He's actually a national socialist. Which you'd know, if you'd been here longer. People listen to him because he's been here long enough to gain respect. That generally takes more than 150 posts. So relax.

JohnnyNemesis
12-07-2006, 02:43 PM
Yeah, because he has the same left-wing political views as everyone else. Which is fine, but God-forbid someone have a different opinion!

This is NOT a left-wing dominated board at ALL. We've got open racists all over the place, some conservatives, a few moderates (which I personally categorize as "cowards" unless its Mota Boy, but that's a whole 'nother issue), and a bunch more.

This has nothing to do with collusion or people having similar viewpoints, and everything to do with exactly what Mota Boy said: it takes you pages to regurgitate a vague outline from some idiot AM radio host. All of your posts have been operating on assumptions.

Hate me all you want, but take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

0r4ng3
12-07-2006, 02:45 PM
Wait, what do you have against moderates? Just because they're somewhere in between Nazi and tru punx doesn't make them cowards.

Venom Symbiote
12-07-2006, 02:49 PM
I think what he's trying to say is he believes if you're a moderate you tend to lean one way or the other anyway, but don't have the guts to say it publically. You're trying to please both sides and not piss anyone off with your views.

Not something I agree with, but it seems like a decent enough point.

JohnnyNemesis
12-07-2006, 02:56 PM
That's kind of what I'm getting at, Venom. But also, what annoys me more is that all too often its just an excuse to criticize what EVERYONE is doing wrong without taking a stand for anything at all. They should just continue eating shit and leave either changing the world or preserving it as is to people with an ounce of courage.

Venom Symbiote
12-07-2006, 03:03 PM
Yep, I'd pretty-much be with you on that point.

If you're in a position of power, you can't ever be trying to please everyone, you've gotta piss some people off if you're going to stick to your convictions.

JohnnyNemesis
12-07-2006, 03:04 PM
True indeed; it's the nature of the beast, to use an apt cliche. But aint nothing wrong with working towards something better for yourself and/or your people if you're so inclined or if that's what you believe in.

Sin Studly
12-07-2006, 03:21 PM
Yeah, because he has the same left-wing political views as everyone else.

LOLZ! Left-wing enough to have you shot for being a nigger.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 04:34 PM
Get off your high horse. There are right wing people we listen to here. Betty for instance. It has to do with not being utterly incompetent.

Hillary is the essence of socialism? (or represents it). Christ.

1565, China was a socialist economy when your grandmother left as well. A communist economy society refers to the theoretical utopia most socialist economies claim to be heading for.
But yes China is much different. It's probably nicer to live there now than under the revolution or during the Cultural War or whatever it was called. Christ.

I'm not on a "high horse". I said she supports the essence of socialism. National medicare is a socialist ideal.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 04:35 PM
LOLZ! Left-wing enough to have you shot for being a nigger.

I hate to break it to you, but I'm white.

JohnnyNemesis
12-07-2006, 04:39 PM
What he's trying to say is that this place is in no fucking way left-wing, genius.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 04:40 PM
This is NOT a left-wing dominated board at ALL. We've got open racists all over the place, some conservatives, a few moderates (which I personally categorize as "cowards" unless its Mota Boy, but that's a whole 'nother issue), and a bunch more.

This has nothing to do with collusion or people having similar viewpoints, and everything to do with exactly what Mota Boy said: it takes you pages to regurgitate a vague outline from some idiot AM radio host. All of your posts have been operating on assumptions.

Hate me all you want, but take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

I don't have any conspiracy theories, nor do I listen to idiot radio hosts. I fail to see how my posts were vague or operating on assumptions. Are you talking about the really long post I made were I gave all my reasons for disliking Hillary Clinton? Because I thought I backed up my opinions quite well there.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 04:42 PM
Look, I have nothing against any of the people I was having the political discussion with, and I respect all of your opinions. I was just trying to argue my point. I don't want you all on here to hate me for that. I'm not exactly what I did or said to come off as an asshole or whatever. Whatever it was, I'm sorry. Like I said, I was just trying to argue my point.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 04:43 PM
What he's trying to say is that this place is in no fucking way left-wing, genius.

I know that, but I wasn't exactly sure if he actually thought I was black, because of some of the things I've seen in his posts.

wheelchairman
12-07-2006, 04:54 PM
I'm not on a "high horse". I said she supports the essence of socialism. National medicare is a socialist ideal.

And I'm telling you it's not. Certainly not in the form Hillary supports.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 04:58 PM
And I'm telling you it's not. Certainly not in the form Hillary supports.

Well I'm confused then. In high school, socialism was basically summed up in that everyone is equals, equal division of everything, no one is more important, shit like that. Or am I thinking of something different?

Either way, even if I got the socialism thing wrong, I don't agree with her stance on national medicare.

wheelchairman
12-07-2006, 05:32 PM
The actual practice of socialist states was usually along the lines of From Each According to their Ability to Each According to their Work.

Equality, not so much obviously. That was a goal not quite achieved. And it was not understood as everyone getting equal. Obviously some need more than others.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 05:38 PM
The actual practice of socialist states was usually along the lines of From Each According to their Ability to Each According to their Work.

Equality, not so much obviously. That was a goal not quite achieved. And it was not understood as everyone getting equal. Obviously some need more than others.

I see, thanks. I see how I was wrong then. My bad. The teacher I had was an idiot apparently.

I understand how some need more than others, but I thought the point of socialism was that no one is seen as better than anyone else, so they're all essentially equals.

JohnnyNemesis
12-07-2006, 05:41 PM
I'm not exactly what I did or said to come off as an asshole or whatever. Whatever it was, I'm sorry. Like I said, I was just trying to argue my point.

You didn't come off as an asshole. You just made really silly claims that annoyed us.


Well I'm confused then. In high school, socialism was basically summed up in that everyone is equals, equal division of everything, no one is more important, shit like that. Or am I thinking of something different?

The problem is that it's impossible for any political or social system to ever be so simple.

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 05:44 PM
You didn't come off as an asshole. You just made really silly claims that annoyed us.

Would that be the socialism thing? 'Cause I obviously misunderstood that. I still don't agree with the stance, but I realize now it really has nothing to do with socialism.

Llamas
12-07-2006, 07:53 PM
Two things:

First of all, I wish there were seperated terms for the different types of being moderate. I'm moderate as HELL, but I have very, very specific views. Some people are moderate because they don't have any opinions on politics. Some are moderate because they don't want to take a stance and want to make everyone happy. Some, like me, are moderate because we take every situation individually and critique it on its own. Half of everything I have a very strong liberal standpoint on, and the other half I have a very conservative standpoint on. That makes me MODERATE.

Second of all, Emehl, I like you. I didn't read what you wrote in this thread for the most part because this thread hasn't really interested me... but you've been a decent poster in on-topic. However, it seems you've made some very uneducated claims in this thread, and you kept going after them even after you were proven wrong. You got defensive, which is expected... but this didn't seem to be an argument of opinion as much as an argument of more factual information that you were just plain wrong about. Hell, everyone's wrong sometimes, and nobody's perfect. But when you're wrong, you gotta chalk up your loss and move on. It's a learning experience. Seriously, though, you're usually a pretty decent poster. You'll get used to it. :)

JohnnyNemesis
12-07-2006, 08:00 PM
I wish there were seperated terms for the different types of being moderate.

I COMPLETELY agree. I like the moderates like you, BUT not the cowards I mentioned. One thing I'll say is that I hope when you say you look at situations on their own you don't necessarily ignore history + etc. when you do it.

Venom Symbiote
12-07-2006, 08:05 PM
But when you're wrong, you gotta chalk up your loss and move on.

:p *smirks* Lies! Not necessary.

Now you're just confusing the poor guy. Heh.

Llamas
12-07-2006, 08:10 PM
I COMPLETELY agree. I like the moderates like you, BUT not the cowards I mentioned. One thing I'll say is that I hope when you say you look at situations on their own you don't necessarily ignore history + etc. when you do it.

Well of course. I actually tend to have more social political views than fiscal... but all my social views are based on fact and history.


:p *smirks* Lies! Not necessary.

Now you're just confusing the poor guy. Heh.

How so?

EMehl6
12-07-2006, 08:13 PM
Second of all, Emehl, I like you. I didn't read what you wrote in this thread for the most part because this thread hasn't really interested me... but you've been a decent poster in on-topic. However, it seems you've made some very uneducated claims in this thread, and you kept going after them even after you were proven wrong. You got defensive, which is expected... but this didn't seem to be an argument of opinion as much as an argument of more factual information that you were just plain wrong about. Hell, everyone's wrong sometimes, and nobody's perfect. But when you're wrong, you gotta chalk up your loss and move on. It's a learning experience. Seriously, though, you're usually a pretty decent poster. You'll get used to it. :)

I know, and I know I screwed up big time with some things, but I thought when I went on the big long spiel about how I didn't agree with Hillary Clinton's political views I backed up my opinion pretty good, except for the whole socialism thing, which I have straight now.


Hell, everyone's wrong sometimes, and nobody's perfect. But when you're wrong, you gotta chalk up your loss and move on.


:p *smirks* Lies! Not necessary.

Now you're just confusing the poor guy. Heh.

Man, I'm stuck now. Who to believe, Venom or Llamas... Hmm... Haha.

Little_Miss_1565
12-07-2006, 10:23 PM
I know, and I know I screwed up big time with some things, but I thought when I went on the big long spiel about how I didn't agree with Hillary Clinton's political views I backed up my opinion pretty good, except for the whole socialism thing, which I have straight now.

To back up anything "well" generally entails that you would be "right"--or, in the case of something like politics which is subjective truths, more like not factually incorrect. You still haven't even said why you're so against universal health care, other than that you thought it was socialist.

Sin Studly
12-08-2006, 12:56 AM
I know that, but I wasn't exactly sure if he actually thought I was black, because of some of the things I've seen in his posts.

What's your racial background? I highly doubt I'd consider you white.

Venom Symbiote
12-08-2006, 02:10 AM
or, in the case of something like politics which is subjective truths, more like not factually incorrect.

Pssh. Some political views are factually correct, some are wrong. I hate this subjectivity crap.

To use a random exampkle: Hitler wasn't entitled to think as he did, fuck that. I'm right, he's wrong. Simple right and wrong, people.

Sin Studly
12-08-2006, 02:19 AM
Except on that point, you're wrong.

a) You're claiming there are limitations on what others are and are not entitled to think.
b) That line of reasoning is exactly the same one Hitler used.
c) Go gas some Jews, Adolph.

Not Ozymandias
12-08-2006, 02:48 AM
http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/8333/26yy7.jpg



http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/9687/27kh9.jpg


Haha, what a bunch of homos. Fuck the troops. :)

Sin Studly
12-08-2006, 02:56 AM
OHNOEZ in wars ppl akshully shoot @ u????????????? wtf???????

Little_Miss_1565
12-08-2006, 06:11 AM
Pssh. Some political views are factually correct, some are wrong. I hate this subjectivity crap.

Um, no, because his "argument" hinged on an incorrect definition of socialism. This would be the "factually incorrect" part.

EMehl6
12-08-2006, 08:12 AM
Um, no, because his "argument" hinged on an incorrect definition of socialism. This would be the "factually incorrect" part.

My whole argument didn't hinge on that, just the part about national healthcare. I made some other points on why I disagree with Clinton's (Hillary) politics. I disagree with the national healthcare thing because I don't think you should have a large portion of your paycheck taken out, pooled, and then equally divided to everyone else. I think you should be able to keep what you worked for, and do what you want with it. The government tells you what you have to do with enough of your money as it is.

EMehl6
12-08-2006, 08:14 AM
Haha, what a bunch of homos. Fuck the troops. :)

If you're against the war, that's one thing, but there's no reason for you to hate the troops. I'm pretty sure you'd be pretty upset yourself if you just saw one of your friends get shot or blown up or something. Some of them don't even want to be there.

EMehl6
12-08-2006, 08:17 AM
What's your racial background? I highly doubt I'd consider you white.

Probably not. I'm like 80-85% Italian. Then there's some Indian (not from India, the ones from America), German, and Irish.

wheelchairman
12-08-2006, 09:09 AM
You'd be like a mix of everything he hates most.

Not Ozymandias
12-08-2006, 01:28 PM
My whole argument didn't hinge on that, just the part about national healthcare. I made some other points on why I disagree with Clinton's (Hillary) politics. I disagree with the national healthcare thing because I don't think you should have a large portion of your paycheck taken out, pooled, and then equally divided to everyone else. I think you should be able to keep what you worked for, and do what you want with it. The government tells you what you have to do with enough of your money as it is.
I agree, that's why I'm anti-police and anti-fire department. Fucking socialist nonsense.

Not Ozymandias
12-08-2006, 01:29 PM
If you're against the war, that's one thing, but there's no reason for you to hate the troops. I'm pretty sure you'd be pretty upset yourself if you just saw one of your friends get shot or blown up or something. Some of them don't even want to be there.
Then they probably shouldn't have VOLUNTEERED to be hired killers for the government.

JohnnyNemesis
12-08-2006, 01:46 PM
Pssh. Some political views are factually correct, some are wrong.

You've said some stupid shit in the past, but this one takes the cake.

Sin Studly
12-08-2006, 03:55 PM
Probably not. I'm like 80-85% Italian. Then there's some Indian (not from India, the ones from America), German, and Irish.

Nigger scum, like I said.

Venom Symbiote
12-08-2006, 05:31 PM
You've said some stupid shit in the past, but this one takes the cake.

Nope. Saddam = wrong. Me = right. Saddam = evil, me = not.

Facts. Indisputable. I've never murdered anyone.

EDIT: As for Duskygrin, Francs aren't legitimate/worthwhile currency. Don't mention them again.

wheelchairman
12-08-2006, 05:33 PM
Nope. Saddam = wrong. Me = right. Saddam = evil, me = not.

Facts. Indisputable. I've never murdered anyone.

How can a person be right or wrong?
Evil is the epitome of subjectivity. You will find that some people do not find his practices to be evil. What will you do then?

Sin Studly
12-08-2006, 05:51 PM
Nope. Saddam = wrong. Me = right. Saddam = evil, me = not.

Facts. Indisputable. I've never murdered anyone.

No, Saddam = good. Nobody else ran Iraq better than he did. He murdered a few thousand people, big deal. He saved the lives of hundreds of thousands. For you to judge yourself favourably to him because you've never murdered anybody is pathetic. You've never had to keep peace in a wartorn savage-fuck nation filled with animalistic muslim scum.

Venom Symbiote
12-08-2006, 06:14 PM
Evil is the epitome of subjectivity. You will find that some people do not find his practices to be evil. What will you do then?

Tell them they're wrong. ;)

And yeah, I'll just ignore Sin's racist babbling.

EMehl6
12-08-2006, 06:23 PM
You'd be like a mix of everything he hates most.

Thrilling. I knew I shouldn't have answered that. Oh well.

Sin Studly
12-08-2006, 08:00 PM
And yeah, I'll just ignore Sin's racist babbling.

Oh, just because I think you're a fucking idiot I'm suddenly a racist?

Paint_It_Black
12-08-2006, 08:20 PM
And yeah, I'll just ignore Sin's racist babbling.

Apparently you're ignoring his valid point too.


Oh, just because I think you're a fucking idiot I'm suddenly a racist?

Well, in fairness, you are a racist. And he is an idiot.

Venom Symbiote
12-08-2006, 09:30 PM
Oh, just because I think you're a fucking idiot I'm suddenly a racist?

Heh. :rolleyes: Actually, I was kind of focusing on the "nigger scum" comment, but whatever floats your boat...

Sin Studly
12-09-2006, 01:27 AM
Plz compare Iraq before Saddam, Iraq during Saddam, and Iraq now.

Sin Studly
12-09-2006, 02:11 AM
Where would Spain be without Franco's purges? Still in a fucking civil war. So yeah, he did more good than bad.

Prox
12-09-2006, 08:58 AM
Deseo que no había uniforme una guerra, toda lo que lo hace es problemas de la causa en el país. Esos terroristas son bastardos.

Llamas
12-09-2006, 03:21 PM
Real quick, I just read the whole thread minus oxygene's posts... and Emehl, you really backcycled in this thread... you said a lot of things and then changed what you said. Then when people called you out on certain things, you dodged the subject. It's fine that you said stuff that you were wrong about that- everyone does that. But it's a matter of conceding and admitting you were wrong. You definitely don't/didn't know what socialism was... and made some claims that were really a bunch of crap. Nothing was backed up factually, either. "but I thought when I went on the big long spiel about how I didn't agree with Hillary Clinton's political views I backed up my opinion pretty good, except for the whole socialism thing, which I have straight now." Okay, glad you have socialism straight now. But they way you "backed up" why you don't agree with her were a bunch of presumptuous guesses and things that were factually unprovable.

That said, I think people here jumped on the "attack Emehl" bandwagon quite aggressively. Emehl is an example of someone who may not know what he's talking about, but he's not a dick or a moron about it. He definitely didn't deserve the flaming that went on in here.

Little_Miss_1565
12-09-2006, 06:41 PM
That was light compared to what usually goes on for much less. One of the things about this board--if you say something asinine, you will get called out on it.

Llamas
12-09-2006, 06:42 PM
I wasn't comparing it to anything else, though.

Little_Miss_1565
12-09-2006, 06:51 PM
But I was. If anyone here says something asinine that they spend more time defending than they do backing up, it's not going to be pretty. Besides, discourse in here was civilized compared to anything, except for the people who aren't ever anyway, so I don't get why this is even an issue.

Llamas
12-09-2006, 07:46 PM
It's not really an issue. It's just that I see some of the people who were participating in bashing Emehl, getting all upset in other threads when people insult a new member for something equally stupid or even stupider. It's just all so hypocritical.

Venom Symbiote
12-09-2006, 08:59 PM
Pssh, everyone's a stupid-head.

Now can we move on?

Oxygene
12-10-2006, 03:40 AM
It's not really an issue. It's just that I see some of the people who were participating in bashing Emehl, getting all upset in other threads when people insult a new member for something equally stupid or even stupider. It's just all so hypocritical.

since you didn't read my posts, I guess this doesn't apply to me :cool:

Little_Miss_1565
12-10-2006, 07:00 AM
It's not really an issue. It's just that I see some of the people who were participating in bashing Emehl, getting all upset in other threads when people insult a new member for something equally stupid or even stupider. It's just all so hypocritical.

I'll tell people to get off someone's case if the poster, new or old, is under 12. Emehl is not. He's a big boy and can deal with people giving him a hard time for not being so good with backing up what he says.

Mota Boy
12-10-2006, 08:05 AM
The problem, though, is when the entire board starts flaming someone, it has a tendency to run them off. Not all the time, but enough that it gets awfully quiet around here. No need to flame someone back to the Stone Age on their first visit when talking about something fairly broad. Instead wait to dismantle their argument issue by issue.

Little_Miss_1565
12-10-2006, 08:08 AM
Which is what the vast majority of people in this thread did. Those who didn't, well, they never do, really.

wheelchairman
12-10-2006, 09:17 AM
Yes I would say that perhaps in the Politics forum, if we are going to flame someone, there should be a corresponding critique to it. Just as a matter of propriety. This isn't General Offspring Discussion for chrissake.