NationStates Jolt Archive

America has long been a shining beacon of freedom, illuminating the darkest and most authoritarian regions of the globe. Many have looked to this brilliance as their salvation and thus flocked to this country. Both in peacetime and in wartime, we have never endangered our superior moral standing in the world, but rather continued inspiring the downtrodden everywhere; this afforded us an added righteousness to our quest to purge evil from this planet. Our zeal in cleansing the world of the scourges which plague it has ballooned since the foundation of this nation. The air supporting this vast balloon is our virtuousness. With this glorious tradition behind us, we must be ever wary of threats which seek to divest us of our position atop the moral pedestal. All that's needed is one sharp prick to bring our moral crusade to a screeching halt.

Now, more than ever, as we embark on assorted anti-terrorism ventures, we must present an unbroken moral facade to the world, impervious to the treachery which is thrown at it. Unfortunately, under Bush's tenure, some unseemly legislation has been passed which outrages one's moral sense. This legislation has added fuel to the terrorists' hateful fire, has incurred vehement criticism from some who we previously thought of as allies, and has partitioned the country in two. This legislation has emboldened and assisted terrorists -- once some angst-ridden Arab youths heard of the ghastly horrors being perpetuated in the US, the supposed land of morality, they may have decided to fight against the US.

Clearly, the limited allowance of gay marriage has hurt us at home and abroad. Condoning a repugnant act has degraded our moral standing, especially in the Arab world. If we seek to subjugate the rogue nations of the Middle East, we have to offer their liberated peoples an effective substitute for their heinous, corrupt system of government. Yet they may be unwilling to allow us to do so, and may even actively fight against such a construction, if they know that our country has plunged so far into nihilism as to be willing to allow to gay men to be married. Our support would crumble, even among our staunchest Arab allies. To preserve our standing, our only reasonable course of action would be to abolish gay marriage. Then, perhaps, the Arab world would rejoice at our assiduous following of moral doctrines and would consequently lend us more support. That could be the trigger that allows us to win the war in Iraq. By remaining true to our proud traditions or morality, we shall prevail.

But if we obdurately continue upon this black path, we risk losing the war in Iraq and other conflicts. However, if this is the case, at least the people would then see with whom the blame lies -- not with neo-conservatives, but with those who advocated gay marriage.

WTF does gay marriage have to do with anything?

Hmmmm...


I foresee a great future in you, young troll. Much anger inside you, hmmm?

Odd, I've never seem a terrorist's public missive include a diatribe against gay marriage in America...

WTF??!! :eek:

Goddamnit not again.

But if we obdurately continue upon this black path, we risk losing the war in Iraq and other conflicts. However, if this is the case, at least the people would then see with whom the blame lies -- not with neo-conservatives, but with those who advocated gay marriage.
So you're suggesting we should lower our ethical standards in order to appeal to those who disagree with us?

What? The world thinks the US are suckers ever since Cuba and Vietnam.

Everyone knows that US foreign policy is nothing but evil.

-snip-

ZOMG! The gays cause terrorism! I knew it!
:rolleyes: Get over yourself. The US is, by no means, a "shining beacon" of freedom.

WTF does gay marriage have to do with anything?
Well, making it illegal does have a tendency to make a country look backwards and oppressive... but I don't think that's what the OP was on about.

Hmmmm...


A great future I see in you, young troll. Much anger inside you, hmmm?

Fixed ;)

Well, making it illegal does have a tendency to make a country look backwards and oppressive... but I don't think that's what the OP was on about.

No, silly. Gays cause terrorism. Obviously.

No, silly. Gays cause terrorism. Obviously.
Here I thought it was the terrorists who cause terrorism.

Here I thought it was the terrorists who cause terrorism.

Well, your wrong. It's all the gays, immigrants, liberals, lefties and Bill Clinton who cause it.

Facade? So you're saying that your vaunted U.S.A doesn't actually have to be moral, as long as they can give the rest of the world the impression that they are?

No, silly. Gays cause terrorism. Obviously.

Really? Not sodomism?

(Invent-a-word DIY kit).

WTF does gay marriage have to do with anything?

We can't win the hearts of minds of the Arab people if they don't fervently believe in the untarnished moral compass of the US. They can't believe in such an ideal if we allow horrendous deeds such as gay marriage to take place. Thus, they may be driven to resist our military incursions instead of supporting them; this severely constricts us and imperils the viability of our entire campaign.

No, silly. Gays cause terrorism. Obviously.
People angry at Gays might. Check out Phelps's bunch. Not the fault of homosexuals, by any means, of course, which is why the OP's anger at the permission of gay marriage is seriously misplaced, but he's arguing that our difference in what is right and wrong is acting as a barrier to relating with people in the middle east, which potentially has some value.

When god was handing out intelligence in class.....you skipped didn't you?

America has long been a shining beacon of freedom, illuminating the darkest and most authoritarian regions of the globe. Many have looked to this brilliance as their salvation and thus flocked to this country. Both in peacetime and in wartime, we have never endangered our superior moral standing in the world, but rather continued inspiring the downtrodden everywhere; this afforded us an added righteousness to our quest to purge evil from this planet. Our zeal in cleansing the world of the scourges which plague it has ballooned since the foundation of this nation. The air supporting this vast balloon is our virtuousness. With this glorious tradition behind us, we must be ever wary of threats which seek to divest us of our position atop the moral pedestal. All that's needed is one sharp prick to bring our moral crusade to a screeching halt.

Now, more than ever, as we embark on assorted anti-terrorism ventures, we must present an unbroken moral facade to the world, impervious to the treachery which is thrown at it. Unfortunately, under Bush's tenure, some unseemly legislation has been passed which outrages one's moral sense. This legislation has added fuel to the terrorists' hateful fire, has incurred vehement criticism from some who we previously thought of as allies, and has partitioned the country in two. This legislation has emboldened and assisted terrorists -- once some angst-ridden Arab youths heard of the ghastly horrors being perpetuated in the US, the supposed land of morality, they may have decided to fight against the US.

Clearly, the limited allowance of gay marriage has hurt us at home and abroad. Condoning a repugnant act has degraded our moral standing, especially in the Arab world. If we seek to subjugate the rogue nations of the Middle East, we have to offer their liberated peoples an effective substitute for their heinous, corrupt system of government. Yet they may be unwilling to allow us to do so, and may even actively fight against such a construction, if they know that our country has plunged so far into nihilism as to be willing to allow to gay men to be married. Our support would crumble, even among our staunchest Arab allies. To preserve our standing, our only reasonable course of action would be to abolish gay marriage. Then, perhaps, the Arab world would rejoice at our assiduous following of moral doctrines and would consequently lend us more support. That could be the trigger that allows us to win the war in Iraq. By remaining true to our proud traditions or morality, we shall prevail.

But if we obdurately continue upon this black path, we risk losing the war in Iraq and other conflicts. However, if this is the case, at least the people would then see with whom the blame lies -- not with neo-conservatives, but with those who advocated gay marriage.


So absurd it is almost a form of Troll-art: you have just got to love this... :D

We can't win the hearts of minds of the Arab people if they don't fervently believe in the untarnished moral compass of the US. They can't believe in such an ideal if we allow horrendous deeds such as gay marriage to take place. Thus, they may be driven to resist our military incursions instead of supporting them; this severely constricts us and imperils the viability of our entire campaign.

Believe? An ideal? So you imply that, despite your defense of it, it doesn't exist at all?

We can't win the hearts of minds of the Arab people.

Post fixed for accuracy and reality.

prick

.

Let me get this straight -- we have to show moral superiority to a region where women are forced to cover all of their skin because men can't be trusted not to rape someone? THOSE are moral people? Please.

We can't win the hearts of minds of the Arab people if they don't fervently believe in the untarnished moral compass of the US. They can't believe in such an ideal if we allow horrendous deeds such as gay marriage to take place.

What about the horrible deeds at Guantanamo Bay? America's morals are hardly untarnished.

.

Lolz.
Yes, I do get it.

The problem is that the US elected a Muppet on the basis that he was a "Good ol' Boy". He was'nt, he's stupid. If America could avoid doing this in the future we would all be very happy. Also there was no united Bleleriand. What with the sons of Feanor, Nargothrond and Morgoth, it was VERY devided.

What about the horrible deeds at Guantanamo Bay? America's morals are hardly untarnished.

I fail to see how detaining terrorists is a "horrible deed." Indeed, in the eyes of law-abiding Arab population, our ardor in apprehending vile individuals would elevate our status.

We can't win the hearts of minds of the Arab people if they don't fervently believe in the untarnished moral compass of the US. They can't believe in such an ideal if we allow horrendous deeds such as gay marriage to take place. Thus, they may be driven to resist our military incursions instead of supporting them; this severely constricts us and imperils the viability of our entire campaign.

What a load of horseshit.

I fail to see how holding people who aren't more than suspected of planning terrorist deeds prisoner for indeterminate time periods and in poor conditions is an act of a nation that genuinely values freedom and prides itself on the justice of its legal system.

But that's just me. I'm from Europe, everyone knows there's only atheist commies there.

I fail to see how detaining terrorists is a "horrible deed." Indeed, in the eyes of law-abiding Arab population, our ardor in apprehending vile individuals would elevate our status.
:D

How does one determine, what constitutes a terrorist? If I may ask?

How would you know that these people are indeed terrorists?

I fail to see how detaining terrorists is a "horrible deed." Indeed, in the eyes of law-abiding Arab population, our ardor in apprehending vile individuals would elevate our status.

I fail to see how holding people who aren't more than suspected of planning terrorist deeds prisoner for indeterminate time periods and in poor conditions is an act of a nation that genuinely values freedom and prides itself on the justice of its legal system.

But that's just me. I'm from Europe, everyone knows there's only atheist commies there. ;)

Why does anyone take this seriously? If we want to be a beacon for morality we have to be more like the terrorists? Seriously, why does anyone even both with this?

This is going to be fun...

America has long been a shining beacon of freedom, illuminating the darkest and most authoritarian regions of the globe.
Like Sese Seko's Zaire, Kai-Chek's Taiwan, Diem's South Vietnam, Chung-Hee's Korea and Bastida's Cuba.

Many have looked to this brilliance as their salvation and thus flocked to this country. Both in peacetime and in wartime, we have never endangered our superior moral standing in the world, but rather continued inspiring the downtrodden everywhere; this afforded us an added righteousness to our quest to purge evil from this planet. Our zeal in cleansing the world of the scourges which plague it has ballooned since the foundation of this nation. The air supporting this vast balloon is our virtuousness. With this glorious tradition behind us, we must be ever wary of threats which seek to divest us of our position atop the moral pedestal.
I'll summarise what that means into one sentence. "OMFG TEH EVIL LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Or some similar neocon crap.

All that's needed is one sharp prick to bring our moral crusade to a screeching halt.
Oxymoron.

Now, more than ever, as we embark on assorted anti-terrorism ventures, we must present an unbroken moral facade to the world, impervious to the treachery which is thrown at it. Unfortunately, under Bush's tenure, some unseemly legislation has been passed which outrages one's moral sense. This legislation has added fuel to the terrorists' hateful fire, has incurred vehement criticism from some who we previously thought of as allies, and has partitioned the country in two. This legislation has emboldened and assisted terrorists -- once some angst-ridden Arab youths heard of the ghastly horrors being perpetuated in the US, the supposed land of morality, they may have decided to fight against the US.
I don't believe Guantanamo Bay required such technicalities as legislation, but the Congress did pass legislation to go into Iraq.

Clearly, the limited allowance of gay marriage has hurt us at home and abroad.
...eh? Out of all the things you could think of that hurts your perfect rose-tinted image of the US, you think of gay marriage? Holy crap, the US governments backwards attitude to the subject is a joke here in the UK. If anything, it's costing you support among the hearts and minds of the people in most European countries.

Condoning a repugnant act has degraded our moral standing, especially in the Arab world.
No it hasn't. Compared to the Iraq War, unconditional support for Israel, Guantanamo Bay and tacit support for the invasion of Lebanon, I'd rate Gay Marriage pretty pretty low on the hateometer.

If we seek to subjugate the rogue nations of the Middle East, we have to offer their liberated peoples an effective substitute for their heinous, corrupt system of government.
Well, I suppose after four years, I might be surprised. I don't expect to be, though.

Yet they may be unwilling to allow us to do so, and may even actively fight against such a construction, if they know that our country has plunged so far into nihilism as to be willing to allow to gay men to be married.
Or, they might fight against such a construction because they see the United States as an imperialist aggressor on an anti Arab, anti Islamic crusade/oil grab.

Our support would crumble, even among our staunchest Arab allies. To preserve our standing, our only reasonable course of action would be to abolish gay marriage.
You already have Arab 'allies' (or the closest you have to allies) and gay marriage. All you have to do is keep a Saudi/Jordanian prince in power.

Then, perhaps, the Arab world would rejoice at our assiduous following of moral doctrines and would consequently lend us more support. That could be the trigger that allows us to win the war in Iraq. By remaining true to our proud traditions or morality, we shall prevail.
I would actually ban gay marriage just for a year just to prove it to be complete and utter bullshit, and see what rubbish you spout out after then.

But if we obdurately continue upon this black path, we risk losing the war in Iraq and other conflicts. However, if this is the case, at least the people would then see with whom the blame lies -- not with neo-conservatives, but with those who advocated gay marriage.
Okay then, here's an idea. Gay Marriage is a state matter. Foreign policy is a federal matter. If you truly believe what you're saying, that gay marriage affects foreign policy to the point where a war is unwinnable, you should take it to the Supreme Court. If they believe you, they will give Congress/President the power to ban gay marriage, and the highest court in the land will have proved you right.

Go on. I dare you.

Why does anyone take this seriously? If we want to be a beacon for morality we have to be more like the terrorists? Seriously, why does anyone even both with this?

Because the poor soul took a lot of time writing this nonsense down, and may even believe it. Should we not at least try to help?

Because the poor soul took a lot of time writing this nonsense down, and may even believe it. Should we not at least try to help?

That guy can't possibly be for real. Nobody would write something like that in seriousness, what with the "glorious virtue" rhetoric.

Why does anyone take this seriously? If we want to be a beacon for morality we have to be more like the terrorists? Seriously, why does anyone even both with this?

Seems like MeansToAnEnd is back, no? Down to the lack of spaces in the name.

So absurd it is almost a form of Troll-art: you have just got to love this... :D

It is up there with MTAE's "Foley is like Rosa Parks/ Seducing pages is like fighting for equal rights" post which was a beauty to behold..

Trilby63;12526625']It is up there with MTAE's "Foley is like Rosa Parks/ Seducing pages is like fighting for equal rights" post which was a beauty to behold..

Well it is, after all, the same person.

How does one determine, what constitutes a terrorist? If I may ask? How would you know that these people are indeed terrorists?

A terrorist is one who conspires to slaughter or injure innocent civilians on a grand scale in order to further a political point. With our extensive and sophisticated intelligence-gathering program, we are capable of sorting through disinformation and false leads in order to precisely apprehend only those devilish fiends; of course, we occasionally err in our nabbing, but that is an infrequent occurrence.

Facade? So you're saying that your vaunted U.S.A doesn't actually have to be moral, as long as they can give the rest of the world the impression that they are?

Funny - "facade" was the one word that jumped out at me as well.

That guy can't possibly be for real. Nobody would write something like that in seriousness, what with the "glorious virtue" rhetoric.

You are probably right, but if his/ her other pieces are just a good, I am looking foreward to more of these posts.

Seems like MeansToAnEnd is back, no? Down to the lack of spaces in the name.
Might well be. Sounded a lot like him. But then, they do all sound the same...

Well it is, after all, the same person.
Oh please tell me that's not true. The throngs will be out in full force again glorifying his "trollish powers". :rolleyes:

*snip of MTAE's gaggerific trolling OP*
*gag*

See, this is the trouble with trolls these days. They just go so over the top, you CAN'T take them seriously. *le sigh*

(then again, at least he's an articulate troll, who doesn't overuse smileys)

Might well be. Sounded a lot like him. But then, they do all sound the same...

I did not hear anything promoting genocide, just yet... I hope we can keep it this way

We can't win the hearts of minds of the Arab people if they don't fervently believe in the untarnished moral compass of the US. They can't believe in such an ideal if we allow horrendous deeds such as gay marriage to take place. Thus, they may be driven to resist our military incursions instead of supporting them; this severely constricts us and imperils the viability of our entire campaign.
By that logic, the military should be proposing a mass conversion to Islam to show the people that we only want what they want.

The difference in our views of morality should not be eliminated out of fear of offence. We should be treating them with respect and dignity, as our respective moral codes would agree is the way forward, and not to "win them over" but because that is what we believe to be the right thing to do.

A terrorist is one who conspires to slaughter or injure innocent civilians on a grand scale in order to further a political point.

So the Unabomber wasn't a terrorist then. Well, that's that settled.

I still don't see what this has to do with recognizing gay marriage.

(then again, at least he's an articulate troll, who doesn't overuse smileys)

Rather fond of the mixed and convoluted metaphor though - the US is a balloon of zeal inflated by the air of virtue which sits on a pedestal and illuminates the world as a beacon whilst travelling down a black path... apparently.

Oh please tell me that's not true. The throngs will be out in full force again glorifying his "trollish powers". :rolleyes:

I never really understood that.. What made MTAE brilliant for that one brief moment was his absurdity. He was a lousy troll because he was so obvious. That whole Rosa Parks/ Foley thing was his only acheivement if only because of it's creativity. Other than that he was boring..

I still don't see what this has to do with recognizing gay marriage.

Neither do I. Is this sort of thread traditional here?

A terrorist is one who conspires to slaughter or injure innocent civilians on a grand scale in order to further a political point. With our extensive and sophisticated intelligence-gathering program, we are capable of sorting through disinformation and false leads in order to precisely apprehend only those devilish fiends; of course, we occasionally err in our nabbing, but that is an infrequent occurrence.

Right no need for checks and balances eh?

Just put all the trust in the two people that apprehend the ïllegal combattant". Worked for Saddam, why not for us...

And when were at it, why provide the same level of dignity the Iranian government would provide: why not provide less.

Likely to win hearts and minds: because we all know that those suspected of Illegal activity.. Have no families or friends whatsoever...

Neither do I. Is this sort of thread traditional here?

Yes, welcome to NSG. Get used to simple-minded threads from those on both sides of the political fence.

*gag*

See, this is the trouble with trolls these days. They just go so over the top, you CAN'T take them seriously. *le sigh*

(then again, at least he's an articulate troll, who doesn't overuse smileys)

Yes, I don't see what's fun about posts that we couldn't possibly begin to take seriously AND that aren't witty or interesting in any way. I like trolls that are closer to real or at least make it a fun parody. This isn't either.

Rather fond of the mixed and convoluted metaphor though - the US is a balloon of zeal inflated by the air of virtue which sits on a pedestal and illuminates the world as a beacon whilst travelling down a black path... apparently.

Yeah...it's exactly that which diminishes it's effect as a 'sincere' position. It's like melodrama...it's fun to watch, but you aren't supposed to take it seriously.

Yes, I don't see what's fun about posts that we couldn't possibly begin to take seriously AND that aren't witty or interesting in any way. I like trolls that are closer to real or at least make it a fun parody. This isn't either.

I know:( Trolls these days...they're such amateurs.

I still don't see what this has to do with recognizing gay marriage.

It dims the USA's 'moral' beacon of light...or something.

With our extensive and sophisticated intelligence-gathering program, we are capable of sorting through disinformation and false leads in order to precisely apprehend only those devilish fiends; of course, we occasionally err in our nabbing, but that is an infrequent occurrence.

The same extensive and sophisticated intelligence-gathering program that we used to track down Saddam's WMDs *nods*

I know:( Trolls these days...they're such amateurs.

I've got half a mind to create a puppet for the express purpose of reminding MTAE how it's done. No, wait - that's as much mind as I have, even on my best days...

Yeah...it's exactly that which diminishes it's effect as a 'sincere' position. It's like melodrama...it's fun to watch, but you aren't supposed to take it seriously.

Right. I know he thinks he's doing so well, but really it resembles the writing on soap operas. And yes, they're fun to look at when you've nothing better to do, but when there actually things of value to discuss or look at or read or whatever, why does this not receive a resounding "meh"?

I know:( Trolls these days...they're such amateurs.

They will never grow big if you forget to feed them.

It dims the USA's 'moral' beacon of light...or something.

I read that as "bacon" for some reason.

Mmm, bacon.

Right. I know he thinks he's doing so well, but really it resembles the writing on soap operas. And yes, they're fun to look at when you've nothing better to do, but when there actually things of value to discuss or look at or read or whatever, why does this not receive a resounding "meh"?

Well I think you have your answer actually. The forum over the past three days or so has been nothing but fluff and spam. After an intellectual drought, even something as ridiculous as this is more interesting than another 'How was your Easter' thread.

I know:( Trolls these days...they're such amateurs.

Yes, a good troll actually offers up something of a view. Like you did. It was something you sort of wanted to explore so it made the effect interesting. The really bad trolls are so far from reality that they don't even accomplish satire.

I think it's unfortunate that he doesn't have more faith that his views can be defended and instead chooses this over-the-top backwards type of argument.

They will never grow big if you forget to feed them.

I rather think we should train them. Surreptitiously of course. Ha. Ha. Kidding! Kidding, Fris. Ha.

I really really really hate corndogs.

I've never met anyone who doesn't. How do the purveyors of corndogs stay in business?

Neither do I. Is this sort of thread traditional here?

From what I've seen in my few months here, the regulars seem to cultivate and maintain forum trolls like pets. Really, really annoying pets.

I really really really hate corndogs.

Wot is all this problem with smileys? they're on the site why cant we use 'em without the snobbish back biting? We are are bunch of couch potatoes and office skivers trying to put the world to rights. Surely you don't take this SERIOUSLY?

Yes, a good troll actually offers up something of a view. Like you did. It was something you sort of wanted to explore so it made the effect interesting. The really bad trolls are so far from reality that they don't even accomplish satire.

I think it's unfortunate that he doesn't have more faith that his views can be defended and instead chooses this over-the-top backwards type of argument.
It's just a shame he went for the troll-and-run ploy. An actual debate would be hilarious.

Well I think you have your answer actually. The forum over the past three days or so has been nothing but fluff and spam. After an intellectual drought, even something as ridiculous as this is more interesting than another 'How was your Easter' thread.

True.

A terrorist is one who conspires to slaughter or injure innocent civilians on a grand scale in order to further a political point. With our extensive and sophisticated intelligence-gathering program, we are capable of sorting through disinformation and false leads in order to precisely apprehend only those devilish fiends; of course, we occasionally err in our nabbing, but that is an infrequent occurrence.

You know then, by that very definition you could label men like Reagan as a terrorist? (see Nicaragua and the Sandanistas) Then you could probably label the Israeli government that...JFK cause of the Bay of Pigs...

Social liberalism doesn't correlate with danger from terrorism. The targets of Muslim terrorism in the West have almost always been countries with involvement in the Muslim world that is objected to, regardless of social liberalism or conservatism. The US, after all, is hardly the most liberal country socially.

We will never convince al Qaeda that we are a moral nation; these are the people who think that Iran and Saudi Arabia are run by heretics.

(Now who's coddling terrorists?)

Wot is all this problem with smileys? they're on the site why cant we use 'em without the snobbish back biting? We are are bunch of couch potatoes and office skivers trying to put the world to rights. Surely you don't take this SERIOUSLY?

Gun smilies breed resentment and agression; generally bad form..

I think Gay marriage could pollute our "Vital bodily Fluids".:fluffle: Oh no! Gay smileys!

I think Gay marriage could pollute our "Vital bodily Fluids".:fluffle: Oh no! Gay smileys!

That's "precious bodily fluids". Get it right.

Class reply!

Gun smilies breed resentment and agression; generally bad form..

Meh. The right to bear gun smilies is guaranteed by the US Bill of Smilie Rights.

Wot is all this problem with smileys? they're on the site why cant we use 'em without the snobbish back biting? We are are bunch of couch potatoes and office skivers trying to put the world to rights. Surely you don't take this SERIOUSLY?
We do. Gun smilies just end up looking like spam and almost invariably end up getting used by someone saying something stupid, unfortunately. That's not true all the time, but nevertheless, they're best used sparingly.

EDIT: That only really applies to the 'upyous', 'sniper', 'mp5', 'gunge' and occasionally 'mad'.

Support moral behavior: Discriminate! :)

It was twenty years ago I saw the film! Pedant!

Trilby63;12526678']I never really understood that.. What made MTAE brilliant for that one brief moment was his absurdity. He was a lousy troll because he was so obvious. That whole Rosa Parks/ Foley thing was his only acheivement if only because of it's creativity. Other than that he was boring..

He was, in a shallow sort of way, like Joseph Heller or Cervantes--a writer who had one great novel (or in this case, thread) in him, and who kept writing anyway, but never again reached those heights.

Its not gun smileys that kill people, its lack of a heartbeat. Can we use the sniper if the subject is JFK?

From what I've seen in my few months here, the regulars seem to cultivate and maintain forum trolls like pets. Really, really annoying pets.

Like purse dogs?

Like purse dogs?

Basically. Though as I recall purse dogs are easier to train.

Meh. The right to bear gun smilies is guaranteed by the US Bill of Smilie Rights.

If you USians want to gun-smiley each other down, that is fine with me, but we Europeans do not need you gun-smiling at us!

Support moral behavior: Discriminate! :)Exactly!

You have such a way with words:)

I'm English, and therefore NOT European. Gun smiley war! Far less destructive than real war!

Its not gun smileys that kill people, its lack of a heartbeat. Can we use the sniper if the subject is JFK?

Does your name end with Oswald?

(or nd shooter, or rd shooter)

I'm English, and therefore NOT European.

Ummm.....huh.

No Utopia, He's like dead. Jack Ruby and all that.

If you USians want to gun-smiley each other down, that is fine with me, but we Europeans do not need you gun-smiling at us!

Thus God made AdBlock.

The idea of 'America's crumbling moral standing in the world' (when technically it's not America anyway; it's the USA; America being the name for two entire continents after all) suggests that at one point it had a considerable moral standing in the world, something which is clearly not the case.
Therefore, I declare this thread a failure at life as a thread.

I'm also convinced that it's major flamebait.

No NOT European! We are on an island off the edge, and most of us hate the E.U. and all the garlic stuffing, arm waving twats on the mainland.

Exactly!

You have such a way with words:)

It's a gift. :cool:

By that logic, the military should be proposing a mass conversion to Islam to show the people that we only want what they want.

That is absurd! It would run contrary to the tenets of freedom which we hold so dear. Forcefully converting Americans to Islam in order to quell Arab unrest would be perverse. That being said, however, encouraging Muslims to enlist in the army could be quite a boon to our peacekeeping efforts -- they could be placed right on the front lines, where they'd do the most good in reassuring the populace of our compassionate and affable nature.

*snip*Thank you for actually hearing our pleas in regards to the repetition of your poster name:)

No NOT European! We are on an island off the edge,

So is Hawaii, still part of the US.

and most of us hate the E.U.

And yet you're in it. Britain is part of europe, you'll just have to learn to live with it.

Yes, I don't see what's fun about posts that we couldn't possibly begin to take seriously

By refusing to argue the point, thus placing yourself above the drudge and sludge of proper debate, you are implicitly ceding the point. I don't see what's so fun of ridiculing opposing viewpoints instead of properly debating them; the only thing such comments reveal is an incapacity to engage in an honest debate. Ah, well, c'est la vie.

That is absurd! It would run contrary to the tenets of freedom which we hold so dear. Forcefully converting Americans to Islam in order to quell Arab unrest would be perverse. That being said, however, encouraging Muslims to enlist in the army could be quite a boon to our peacekeeping efforts -- they could be placed right on the front liens, where they'd do the most good in reassuring the populace of our compassionate and affable nature.

first it is funny, but then the genocide-part begins to show...

So now that this thread is properly derailed and no body is really paying attention to the trollish wonder...

:mp5: versus :gundge: discuss

first it is funny, but then the genocide-part begins to show...

Genocide? How can the deaths of those who voluntarily enlisted in the army be compared to genocide? In war, people die: that's a fact. However, there is no correlation between their deaths and genocide. And even if there was a genocide, it would not be perpetuated by the US, but rather by the Iraqi insurgents who kill the Muslim front-line troops. I'm afraid I don't see your point.

Genocide? How can the deaths of those who voluntarily enlisted in the army be compared to genocide? In war, people die: that's a fact. However, there is no correlation between their deaths and genocide. And even if there was a genocide, it would not be perpetuated by the US, but rather by the Iraqi insurgents who kill the Muslim front-line troops. I'm afraid I don't see your point.

It does remind one of "Operation Get Behind the Darkies" from the South Park movie.

Thank you for actually hearing our pleas in regards to the repetition of your poster name:)

*points to his location*
I'm suffering badly from the desire to sign my posts. Thanks, Neesika.
:D

It does remind one of "Operation Get Behind the Darkies" from the South Park movie.

hah, I remember that now...

I see you took my advice about starting a new troll thread seriously, MTAE. Good on you.

Social liberalism doesn't correlate with danger from terrorism. The targets of Muslim terrorism in the West have almost always been countries with involvement in the Muslim world that is objected to, regardless of social liberalism or conservatism. The US, after all, is hardly the most liberal country socially.

We will never convince al Qaeda that we are a moral nation; these are the people who think that Iran and Saudi Arabia are run by heretics.

(Now who's coddling terrorists?)

Terrorists are disgusting, slimy scum on the underbelly of society. They should be exterminated, not cuddled. However, their insidious, abhorrent viewpoint permeates through the squalid conditions of much of the Arab world. It infects unwitting victims and ravages communities. It is the US's role in the world to quarantine this abomination and safely remove potential victims from its steely grasp. We can accomplish this lofty objective by dangling alluring ideals such as freedom and liberty Arab youths in order to turn them away from the nihilism which is seeping into their town. But for them to accept that which we hold dear, they must not be repelled by ghastly, immoral aberrations such as gay marriage -- that might cause them to run into terrorism's cold embrace. Instead, we must revert to our traditional purity in order to attract these young men and women. It's too late to pretend that we can let Islamic terrorism to fester in dismal countries until it is sufficiently powerful to strike out and engulf the war in a heinous campaign of bloodshed -- no, we invaded Iraq to prevent that appalling outcome from occurring. Only true moral purity can now avert total catastrophe and remove the influence of the terrorists on Iraq. The US can shine as a beacon once more once it is not shrouded in atrocious practices.

I can imagine the conversion which took place in Teh Terrorcave (C):

Ahmed: Hey Osama, have you heard the news?
Osama: What?
Ahmed: The American pig-dog-hamster-gerbils have semi-legalised gay marriage in a couple of their states!
Osama: WHAT?!?! Ok, I'm a reasonable guy: I can ignore the US's record of supporting despotic, pro-western autocrats in Arab countries, I can forgive the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and I can accept the hideously large number of innocents who've died in the process, but legalising gay marriage? No! This is the last straw! Hand me my camel!

*exit Osama on camel, leading an enormous mob of otherwise reasonable people who're incensed by the idea of gay rights existing ten thosand kilometers away*

And yet you're in it. Britain is part of europe, you'll just have to learn to live with it.

Ouch.

Terrorists are disgusting, slimy scum on the underbelly of society. They should be exterminated, not cuddled. However, their insidious, abhorrent viewpoint permeates through the squalid conditions of much of the Arab world. It infects unwitting victims and ravages communities. It is the US's role in the world to quarantine this abomination and safely remove potential victims from its steely grasp. We can accomplish this lofty objective by dangling alluring ideals such as freedom and liberty Arab youths in order to turn them away from the nihilism which is seeping into their town. But for them to accept that which we hold dear, they must not be repelled by ghastly, immoral aberrations such as gay marriage -- that might cause them to run into terrorism's cold embrace. Instead, we must revert to our traditional purity in order to attract these young men and women. It's too late to pretend that we can let Islamic terrorism to fester in dismal countries until it is sufficiently powerful to strike out and engulf the war in a heinous campaign of bloodshed -- no, we invaded Iraq to prevent that appalling outcome from occurring. Only true moral purity can now avert total catastrophe and remove the influence of the terrorists on Iraq. The US can shine as a beacon once more once it is not shrouded in atrocious practices.

It might not be enough. We should probably squash that annoying women's equality. That gets muslim extremists riled too. *nod*

So now that this thread is properly derailed and no body is really paying attention to the trollish wonder...

:mp5: versus :gundge: discuss

:upyours: beats all, especially in terms of n00bishness.

:upyours: beats all, especially in terms of n00bishness.

I wish the smilies and the sigs would both just GO TO HELL.

new to nation states. are hate-mongering neo-nazis like this guy allowed to spew their ignorant crap here? Wasnt aware that this was a site for fundamentalist american nonsense. please let me know if this is the case, as I will get out of here asap

new to nation states. are hate-mongering neo-nazis like this guy allowed to spew their ignorant crap here? Wasnt aware that this was a site for fundamentalist american nonsense. please let me know if this is the case, as I will get out of here asap

Long as it isn't personal attacks or porn, it's pretty much anything goes. If you can't handle views that oppose yours, you might want to head out, because it gets pretty rough and tumble here at times.

new to nation states. are hate-mongering neo-nazis like this guy allowed to spew their ignorant crap here? Wasnt aware that this was a site for fundamentalist american nonsense. please let me know if this is the case, as I will get out of here asap

Yeah, leave and go to post under a bridge, where you deserve to live for criticizing the same thing you are doing in your post.

new to nation states. are hate-mongering neo-nazis like this guy allowed to spew their ignorant crap here? Wasnt aware that this was a site for fundamentalist american nonsense. please let me know if this is the case, as I will get out of here asap

It's called freedom, so if you hate freedom you hate America. Leave America.

Now.

Terrorists are disgusting, slimy scum on the underbelly of society.

A vague description applicable to many other types of unsavoury persons.

They should be exterminated, not cuddled.

Even terrorists need a little lovin'.

However, their insidious, abhorrent viewpoint permeates through the squalid conditions of much of the Arab world.

As oppose to the squalid conditions in the western world that some children live in because of the blind eye that society turns to poverty? :rolleyes:

It infects unwitting victims and ravages communities.

Just like Christianity does!

It is the US's role in the world to quarantine this abomination and safely remove potential victims from its steely grasp.

It is also the US's role to clean up its own backyard; pull up the renegade weeds and mow the lawn and pick up those nasty doggie turds before it frowns upon its neighbours' yards...

We can accomplish this lofty objective by dangling alluring ideals such as freedom and liberty Arab youths in order to turn them away from the nihilism which is seeping into their town.

Strange since such freedoms are available to American youth, but some turn to petty crime and other immoral activities to kill time and they have that tasty carrot already in hand. What makers Arab youths more receptive when there are American youth who have such luxuries but still want a life of crime?

But for them to accept that which we hold dear, they must not be repelled by ghastly, immoral aberrations such as gay marriage -- that might cause them to run into terrorism's cold embrace. Instead, we must revert to our traditional purity in order to attract these young men and women.

But not repelled by the terrible treatment of women and minorities? If you do revert to traditional purity, you do become like them.

It's too late to pretend that we can let Islamic terrorism to fester in dismal countries until it is sufficiently powerful to strike out and engulf the war in a heinous campaign of bloodshed -- no, we invaded Iraq to prevent that appalling outcome from occurring.

To prevent? If anything it has help to fuel the desire and passion that drives the life line that terrorism thrives upon.

Only true moral purity can now avert total catastrophe and remove the influence of the terrorists on Iraq. The US can shine as a beacon once more once it is not shrouded in atrocious practices.

What beacon? Despite the fact that some people have been deluded into thinking that America is a democracy, it is not the best example of how to run a country. It is however, an example of what "moral righteousness" does in the hands of a power-hungry leader at the helm of a powerful republic.

America may have once been a shining beacon for others, but it has strayed from the path when it did attempt to display the righteous and moral path because it forgot the ideals that it once stood for.

ps - anyone else find it funny that the first letter of each word in his name spells "FAG"?

ps - anyone else find it funny that the first letter of each word in his name spells "FAG"?

Been there, FAGed that.

America has long been a shining beacon of freedom, illuminating the darkest and most authoritarian regions of the globe. Many have looked to this brilliance as their salvation and thus flocked to this country. Both in peacetime and in wartime, we have never endangered our superior moral standing in the world, but rather continued inspiring the downtrodden everywhere; this afforded us an added righteousness to our quest to purge evil from this planet. Our zeal in cleansing the world of the scourges which plague it has ballooned since the foundation of this nation. The air supporting this vast balloon is our virtuousness. With this glorious tradition behind us, we must be ever wary of threats which seek to divest us of our position atop the moral pedestal. All that's needed is one sharp prick to bring our moral crusade to a screeching halt.

Now, more than ever, as we embark on assorted anti-terrorism ventures, we must present an unbroken moral facade to the world, impervious to the treachery which is thrown at it. Unfortunately, under Bush's tenure, some unseemly legislation has been passed which outrages one's moral sense. This legislation has added fuel to the terrorists' hateful fire, has incurred vehement criticism from some who we previously thought of as allies, and has partitioned the country in two. This legislation has emboldened and assisted terrorists -- once some angst-ridden Arab youths heard of the ghastly horrors being perpetuated in the US, the supposed land of morality, they may have decided to fight against the US.

Clearly, the limited allowance of gay marriage has hurt us at home and abroad. Condoning a repugnant act has degraded our moral standing, especially in the Arab world. If we seek to subjugate the rogue nations of the Middle East, we have to offer their liberated peoples an effective substitute for their heinous, corrupt system of government. Yet they may be unwilling to allow us to do so, and may even actively fight against such a construction, if they know that our country has plunged so far into nihilism as to be willing to allow to gay men to be married. Our support would crumble, even among our staunchest Arab allies. To preserve our standing, our only reasonable course of action would be to abolish gay marriage. Then, perhaps, the Arab world would rejoice at our assiduous following of moral doctrines and would consequently lend us more support. That could be the trigger that allows us to win the war in Iraq. By remaining true to our proud traditions or morality, we shall prevail.

But if we obdurately continue upon this black path, we risk losing the war in Iraq and other conflicts. However, if this is the case, at least the people would then see with whom the blame lies -- not with neo-conservatives, but with those who advocated gay marriage.fun fun fun (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3804936380592532933&q=in+the+navy) popcorn :D

No NOT European! We are on an island off the edge, and most of us hate the E.U. and all the garlic stuffing, arm waving twats on the mainland.

Well help Bliar seal his legacy and have the place towed off to the States. Don't complain when spanish becomes the national language in a few years though...

Ah, the troll is back! :)

Seems like MeansToAnEnd is back, no? Down to the lack of spaces in the name.

It does indeed. http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/urinal.gif

By refusing to argue the point, thus placing yourself above the drudge and sludge of proper debate, you are implicitly ceding the point. I don't see what's so fun of ridiculing opposing viewpoints instead of properly debating them; the only thing such comments reveal is an incapacity to engage in an honest debate. Ah, well, c'est la vie.

Double dog dare me. That'll work. I'd only feel obligated to debate your points if there was ANY chance anyone would take you seriously and agree with you. Your point is so ludicrous as to be of no danger at all. What you're doing isn't honest debate and everyone here knows it.

Why don't you just let it go? The shotgun effect doesn't work. If you can't think of a witty way to troll, then just don't bother. This is just sad.

By refusing to argue the point, thus placing yourself above the drudge and sludge of proper debate, you are implicitly ceding the point. I don't see what's so fun of ridiculing opposing viewpoints instead of properly debating them; the only thing such comments reveal is an incapacity to engage in an honest debate. Ah, well, c'est la vie.

I'm pretty sure it's c'est le vivre.

No NOT European! We are on an island off the edge, and most of us hate the E.U. and all the garlic stuffing, arm waving twats on the mainland.
Oh, brother. Do you think everything UKIP tells you to? Are the French on Corsica not European? Are the Italians on Sardinia and Sicily not European? Are the Irish not European? Of course they are. For that matter, the Swiss, Norwegians, Ukrainians, San Marinans, Byelorussians, Icelanders are also European? They are not not part of the EU.

EU =/= Europe.

If you can't think of a witty way to troll, then just don't bother. This is just sad.

If you can't contribute something valid do the discussion, don't post at all. Several people have answered me honestly, and I have endeavored to reply to their queries adequately. You, on the other hand, have degraded yourself to trolling. Perhaps you need to reexamine what's really "sad" here.

You, on the other hand, have degraded yourself to trolling.

Rule # 1 of the book of trolling - accuse others of trolling when they point out your trolling.

It's nice that you're still following... the exact... same... book.

If you can't contribute something valid do the discussion, don't post at all. Several people have answered me honestly, and I have endeavored to reply to their queries adequately. You, on the other hand, have degraded yourself to trolling. Perhaps you need to reexamine what's really "sad" here.

So you are honestly claiming to hold the ludicrous ideology that we would do well to

A) put all of our Muslims on the front lines.
B) Discriminate against homosexuals to promote freedom
C) Ascribe to as many ideologies the terrorists hold as possible to take away their reasoning for attacking us?

You're right. It's quite possible I gave you too much credit.

Even terrorists need a little lovin'.

You disgust me.

As oppose to the squalid conditions in the western world that some children live in because of the blind eye that society turns to poverty? :rolleyes:

We have agencies responsible for taking care of children who live in such conditions -- grossly neglectful parents may be stripped of their children if they do not provide for them sufficiently. Even so, few impoverished children air their grievances by massacring innocent civilians, as do the terrorists.

Just like Christianity does!

No, not at all, actually.

Strange since such freedoms are available to American youth, but some turn to petty crime and other immoral activities to kill time and they have that tasty carrot already in hand. What makers Arab youths more receptive when there are American youth who have such luxuries but still want a life of crime?

I never claimed that freedom mixed with morality is a panacea to all of society's ills. However, there is a gaping chasm between terrorism and petty crime. You'd be hard-pressed to find American youths who turn to terrorism. It's disgraceful to compare the brutal slaughter of innocent civilians to swiping a bag of chips.

What beacon? Despite the fact that some people have been deluded into thinking that America is a democracy, it is not the best example of how to run a country.

If you like another country better, nobody's stopping you from moving there. However, the US is by far the most prosperous country in the world; it has also attained this enviable ranking without the erosion of its morals. And the US, like every other democracy in the world, is a democratic republic.

ps - anyone else find it funny that the first letter of each word in his name spells "FAG"?

No.

Rule # 1 of the book of trolling - accuse others of trolling when they point out your trolling.

It's nice that you're still following... the exact... same... book.

Yes, of course.

"How dare you recognize my argument is absurd and doesn't resemble the beliefs of anyone? You're supposed to take me seriously since I don't have faith in myself as a debater to make an argument that isn't patently absurd."

Would the trolling be more apparent if he said the above? I don't think it could be. People who wish to be taken seriously don't put so much effort to make their argument sound like a soliloquy and not put the effort to keep their metaphors straight. That stuff is on purpose and thata he'd think we wouldn't notice is an insult to debate, NSG and humor.

Ghastly sentiments issued tritely. Utterly atrocious. Pettifoggery at it's lowest. These thoughts came to mind when I read the opening post.

We have no moral standing in the world, we have degenerated from being a nation of good people with good leaders, to a nation of demagogues, by demagoguery for the very few.

A) put all of our Muslims on the front lines.

Indeed. It would do wonders to reassure the Iraqi people; it would send a message that we are respectful of their cultural heritage and desire only what is in their best interests. They look upon us as abstractions, white invaders from another world; we need to remedy that malady by showing them that we are compassionate human beings. It's only human to feel safer when surrounded by people who are more similar to you -- the Iraqis can't really be blamed for that. Foreign xenophobia is a sad fact of life -- if we can't eliminate it, we might as well use it to our advantage.

B) Discriminate against homosexuals to promote freedom

No more than we discriminate against shoplifters, criminals, and those who engage in bestiality. In fact, we'd be far more lenient on them, despite the immoral behavior in which they are engaged. They would not be denied anything based on their affliction; however, realizing that marriage is a natural union between a man and a woman, they would be prevented from thus consummating their relationship. Perhaps in the future, homosexual sex could be similarly banned.

C) Ascribe to as many ideologies the terrorists hold as possible to take away their reasoning for attacking us?

I never advocated such a viewpoint. I simply asserted that it is necessary to regain the moral high ground -- if we stay down below, we'll be right in the line of fire.

I never advocated such a viewpoint. I simply asserted that it is necessary to regain the moral high ground -- if we stay down below, we'll be right in the line of fire.

And since gay marriage isn't immoral, we have the moral high ground on that position. QED.

Yes, of course.

I have done nothing but argue my case; you have done nothing but slander me. How dare you have the nerve to call me a troll? The definition of a troll is perfectly consistent with your behavior, I am afraid.

I have done nothing but argue my case; you have done nothing but slander me. How dare you have the nerve to call me a troll? The definition of a troll is perfectly consistent with your behavior, I am afraid.

By all means, if you suspect Jocabia is trolling, report him to Moderation.

If you don't, then STFU.

The War On Terror is just a made up name by ther Bush Dictatorship and its cronies in a lust for oil to fuel the economy which is surely but slowly grinding to a halt. America is sick people!! You need to re liberate yourselves before you look to "liberating" Others. I wish you all the best and lets hope you return your wonderful country to the ideals laid out int the Constitution. :fluffle:

Indeed. It would do wonders to reassure the Iraqi people; it would send a message that we are respectful of their cultural heritage and desire only what is in their best interests. They look upon us as abstractions, white invaders from another world; we need to remedy that malady by showing them that we are compassionate human beings. It's only human to feel safer when surrounded by people who are more similar to you -- the Iraqis can't really be blamed for that. Foreign xenophobia is a sad fact of life -- if we can't eliminate it, we might as well use it to our advantage.
Nothing shows compassion better than using people as cannon fodder.

No more than we discriminate against shoplifters, criminals, and those who engage in bestiality. In fact, we'd be far more lenient on them, despite the immoral behavior in which they are engaged. They would not be denied anything based on their affliction; however, realizing that marriage is a natural union between a man and a woman, they would be prevented from thus consummating their relationship.
Shoplifters commit a crime against someone else's property. Murderers commit a crime against another person. Homosexual sex harms noone nor their property. Even if it were an illness, which it is not, why on earth go to the trouble of trying to ban it?

Perhaps in the future, homosexual sex could be similarly banned.
Bye bye, 14th amendment.

I never advocated such a viewpoint. I simply asserted that it is necessary to regain the moral high ground -- if we stay down below, we'll be right in the line of fire.
So, you think that bodies of dead (American) Muslims and hysterical homophobia count as a moral high ground?

You disgust me.

I only disgust you? Aw.... so I'm not THAT morally repulsive? Shit... I've got ways to come then! :D

We have agencies responsible for taking care of children who live in such conditions -- grossly neglectful parents may be stripped of their children if they do not provide for them sufficiently. Even so, few impoverished children air their grievances by massacring innocent civilians, as do the terrorists.

Sure there may be agencies but they are far from perfect and have many hurdles to overcome if they are to actually do anything about the conditions. Further, squalid conditions aren't necessarily due to neglect but to poverty, which is a cycle perpetuated by the fact that many safety nets have been taken away for numerous reasons.

And yes, some impoverished children may turn to gangs, which embrace the same ideals that terrorists embrace, even if the fundamentals are different on the surface.

Use whatever colourful euphemism you want, but at the end of the day, gang violence is just like terrorism and gang members are like terrorists, except they don't resort to suicide-bombing as a means to attack the world around them.

No, not at all, actually.

Religion is infectious just as you say terrorism is. Even if you don't think so, it is; it required indoctrination and belief and followers. It doesn't matter what the religion is; it can be infectious when there is a charismatic leader that can ensure that the masses are brainwashed into believing that this way (it can be anything) is the one true way, they will follow through to the end never realising the truth.

I never claimed that freedom mixed with morality is a panacea to all of society's ills. However, there is a gaping chasm between terrorism and petty crime. You'd be hard-pressed to find American youths who turn to terrorism. It's disgraceful to compare the brutal slaughter of innocent civilians to swiping a bag of chips.

No, I'm comparing violent crime; school shootings and the like to terrorism because that's what it is, terrorism. Even if they aren't flying planes into buildings and blowing up market places full of innocent people.

Terrorism can be as simple as bullying because the bully is instilling fear in the heart of his/her innocent victim. Or, terrorism can be as complex and elaborate as 9/11.

If you like another country better, nobody's stopping you from moving there. However, the US is by far the most prosperous country in the world; it has also attained this enviable ranking without the erosion of its morals. And the US, like every other democracy in the world, is a democratic republic.
*refrains from making a snide comment about if she were an American*

And no, the US is NOT the most prosperous country in the world. IT may be doing ok, but there are others that are better off.

And prove that every other democracy is a republic because I find that to be glaringly wrong. Democracies are not inherently republics, nor are republics necessarily democratic.

ie - Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a democratic election system that uses the parliamentary format use in England.

So you are honestly claiming to hold the ludicrous ideology that we would do well to

A) put all of our Muslims on the front lines.
B) Discriminate against homosexuals to promote freedom
C) Ascribe to as many ideologies the terrorists hold as possible to take away their reasoning for attacking us?

You're right. It's quite possible I gave you too much credit.

Actually, if you only look at B and C, he sounds a lot like Dinesh D'Souza's last book, where he blames liberals for 9/11. D'Souza makes good money to come up with that kind of shit.

ie - Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a democratic election system that uses the parliamentary format use in England.
Aha! The British North America Act states that the Canadian political system is based on the one used in the UK, not just England. To answer your next question, yes, I'm being a pedantic asshat. I'm sorry.

No NOT European! We are on an island off the edge, and most of us hate the E.U. and all the garlic stuffing, arm waving twats on the mainland.

I think holiday flight stats might suggest that many people like the mainland enough to holiday there.

We dislike perhaps their mannerisms and such but really....hate? Well besides the French, which is more of a hate as shown in a family between rival siblings than out and out evil deranged hatred.

Garlic stuffing? What would one stuff a clove of garlic with?

I'm pretty sure it's c'est le vivre.

Nah, it is c'est la vie.

FreedomAndGlory, if you wish to debate in 2007, then pull your mind out of the Middle Ages. You have an irrational hate of homos, something that is as natural and old as hetero-relationships. You can not state your own opinion as a 'moral high ground'.

Look at this map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/World_homosexuality_laws.png) and look at what kind of countries seem to suit you most.

Even your point doesn't make sence. How many countries that have legalised gay marriages have suffered from a recent terrorrist attack?

And if they believe women should be clothed in burkas?
What if they believe that Christians are infidels that should all die?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, they believe that imperialistic wars are bad for them if it's their country we imperialize?

Prior to 9/11, we didn't invade Afghanistan, the home of burkhas, and the home of Taliban who believe that Christians are infidels who should all die.

We were quite willing to let them essentially vanish from the world map until 9/11.

Indeed. It would do wonders to reassure the Iraqi people; it would send a message that we are respectful of their cultural heritage and desire only what is in their best interests. They look upon us as abstractions, white invaders from another world; we need to remedy that malady by showing them that we are compassionate human beings. It's only human to feel safer when surrounded by people who are more similar to you -- the Iraqis can't really be blamed for that. Foreign xenophobia is a sad fact of life -- if we can't eliminate it, we might as well use it to our advantage.



No more than we discriminate against shoplifters, criminals, and those who engage in bestiality. In fact, we'd be far more lenient on them, despite the immoral behavior in which they are engaged. They would not be denied anything based on their affliction; however, realizing that marriage is a natural union between a man and a woman, they would be prevented from thus consummating their relationship. Perhaps in the future, homosexual sex could be similarly banned.



I never advocated such a viewpoint. I simply asserted that it is necessary to regain the moral high ground -- if we stay down below, we'll be right in the line of fire.

Ha. You should learn your military maneuvers better. High ground is about increased their exposure not decreasing ours. When we have the high ground we can see over shelter they might sit behind and it requires a shelter they can get under. As fact has it, the high ground can put you IN the line of fire.

Meanwhile, amusing.

And if they believe women should be clothed in burkas?
What if they believe that Christians are infidels that should all die?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, they believe that imperialistic wars are bad for them if it's their country we imperialize?

Aha! The British North America Act states that the Canadian political system is based on the one used in the UK, not just England. To answer your next question, yes, I'm being a pedantic asshat. I'm sorry.

I realise that. I just made the choice to make it easier to illustrate my point. Yes, details, details... nitpick all you want.

*OP*
Hmm.

Mein Kampf-tastic.

"Them fuckin gays, ruining our lands and wimmenz"

Even your point doesn't make sence. How many countries that have legalised gay marriages have suffered from a recent terrorrist attack?
Didn't Spain legalise gay marriage but did get attacked? I know those two subjects are unrelated, but I'm just curious and I can't remember the order of those two events...

I realise that. I just made the choice to make it easier to illustrate my point. Yes, details, details... nitpick all you want.
MTAE's gone, so I can't put in anything more constructive.

Didn't Spain legalise gay marriage but did get attacked? I know those two subjects are unrelated, but I'm just curious and I can't remember the order of those two events...
I'm fairly sure the attacks came first.

I'm fairly sure the attacks came first.
So does that mean that legalizing gay marriage is actually a way of combating terrorism? Because there haven't been any attacks since, right? :D

So does that mean that legalizing gay marriage is actually a way of combating terrorism? Because there haven't been any attacks since, right? :D

There haven't been any attacks since I bought a house and got a mortgage, so maybe that's it.

Didn't Spain legalise gay marriage but did get attacked? I know those two subjects are unrelated, but I'm just curious and I can't remember the order of those two events...
They were attacked (march 2004) before they legalized it (october 2004). Close call though, I admit that.

Didn't Spain legalise gay marriage but did get attacked? I know those two subjects are unrelated, but I'm just curious and I can't remember the order of those two events...

Aren't those attacks claimed by Basque terror... ahem I mean "Freedom Fighters"?

Didn't Spain legalise gay marriage but did get attacked? I know those two subjects are unrelated, but I'm just curious and I can't remember the order of those two events...

Yes and of the western countries the US has one of the worst records on gay rights and the worst record on interfering with the politics of Arab nations. And it's the highest on their hit list. Hmmm... odd that is. The other countries were not attacked until they joined with us. Also odd. Seems like the quickest way to get attacked is to be associated with the actions of the US abroad.

America has long been a shining beacon of freedom, illuminating the darkest and most authoritarian regions of the globe. Many have looked to this brilliance as their salvation and thus flocked to this country. Both in peacetime and in wartime, we have never endangered our superior moral standing in the world, but rather continued inspiring the downtrodden everywhere; this afforded us an added righteousness to our quest to purge evil from this planet. Our zeal in cleansing the world of the scourges which plague it has ballooned since the foundation of this nation. The air supporting this vast balloon is our virtuousness. With this glorious tradition behind us, we must be ever wary of threats which seek to divest us of our position atop the moral pedestal. All that's needed is one sharp prick to bring our moral crusade to a screeching halt.

Now, more than ever, as we embark on assorted anti-terrorism ventures, we must present an unbroken moral facade to the world, impervious to the treachery which is thrown at it. Unfortunately, under Bush's tenure, some unseemly legislation has been passed which outrages one's moral sense. This legislation has added fuel to the terrorists' hateful fire, has incurred vehement criticism from some who we previously thought of as allies, and has partitioned the country in two. This legislation has emboldened and assisted terrorists -- once some angst-ridden Arab youths heard of the ghastly horrors being perpetuated in the US, the supposed land of morality, they may have decided to fight against the US.

Clearly, the limited allowance of gay marriage has hurt us at home and abroad. Condoning a repugnant act has degraded our moral standing, especially in the Arab world. If we seek to subjugate the rogue nations of the Middle East, we have to offer their liberated peoples an effective substitute for their heinous, corrupt system of government. Yet they may be unwilling to allow us to do so, and may even actively fight against such a construction, if they know that our country has plunged so far into nihilism as to be willing to allow to gay men to be married. Our support would crumble, even among our staunchest Arab allies. To preserve our standing, our only reasonable course of action would be to abolish gay marriage. Then, perhaps, the Arab world would rejoice at our assiduous following of moral doctrines and would consequently lend us more support. That could be the trigger that allows us to win the war in Iraq. By remaining true to our proud traditions or morality, we shall prevail.

But if we obdurately continue upon this black path, we risk losing the war in Iraq and other conflicts. However, if this is the case, at least the people would then see with whom the blame lies -- not with neo-conservatives, but with those who advocated gay marriage.

I like you. You're clever. You're wrong, but clever.

Indeed. It would do wonders to reassure the Iraqi people; it would send a message that we are respectful of their cultural heritage and desire only what is in their best interests. They look upon us as abstractions, white invaders from another world; we need to remedy that malady by showing them that we are compassionate human beings. It's only human to feel safer when surrounded by people who are more similar to you -- the Iraqis can't really be blamed for that. Foreign xenophobia is a sad fact of life -- if we can't eliminate it, we might as well use it to our advantage...
Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's not "white invaders" that are the problem.

To be honest, I'd be pretty pissed off if Sweden invaded and shot up my relatives after calling them insurgents to make the kill figures look a bit better, and they're as white as I am.

If anyone invades a land, under any pretence, the locals are going to be pretty angry. If there was a spate of attacks on Catholics in my local area and the Vatican deployed the Swiss Guard as 'peacekeepers' (urmm this is ludicrous, but still...) and they went around pike-ing people a bit, I'd by angry, as would everyone else.

Causing a power vacuum in Iraq and leaving it up to the warlords to do the ruling (don't try and tell me that the democratically elected government there has any power, it doesn't and you should know as well as I) is probably why people are so annoyed - if you'd been living in Iraq for 20 years under Saddam, you'd probably be at least slightly loyal to him, and if your figurehead goes, then it's a bit of a blow, especially if they've then been replaced by a leader who orders people to cut your dad's head off because he's of a different sect to you.

I'm going to assume you're a Protestant Christian (if this isn't true, then I'm sure you can think of a similar scenario) - what if one day your local pastor is shot and killed by an Orthodox Bishop, who then orders anyone of any faith of good will to hunt down you Protestant chaps and kill them simply for being of a different faith, and a possible danger.

I'd be pretty angry, wouldn't you?

What's more, it seems as if foreign xenophobia, or at the very least, incredible ignorance, is coming from you, too. The Iraqis aren't stupid, you know, the ones living in the cities used to live a pretty good life, especially when you take food rationing into account. Before Saddam was removed from power, they were educated, they weren't, on the whole, religious fanatics, and the women had good rights for the region.

In short, they're not savages, they're people like you and I.

It's just that things have turned very much for the worse as of the last 4 years.
No more than we discriminate against shoplifters, criminals, and those who engage in bestiality. In fact, we'd be far more lenient on them, despite the immoral behavior in which they are engaged. They would not be denied anything based on their affliction; however, realizing that marriage is a natural union between a man and a woman, they would be prevented from thus consummating their relationship. Perhaps in the future, homosexual sex could be similarly banned.
Hmm. I see.

You are a nutter.

But I see.
I never advocated such a viewpoint. I simply asserted that it is necessary to regain the moral high ground -- if we stay down below, we'll be right in the line of fire.
Interestingly enough, unless you choose to be armoured in the Abrams Tank Of Morality, then it's not a good choice to be on high ground, because that's where you're most easily shot at.

If you keep on the low moral ground, then at the very least, you can do completely reprehensible things without people being particularly surprised by it.

Aren't those attacks claimed by Basque terror... ahem I mean "Freedom Fighters"?
No, not at all.

It wasn't ETA's style - they usually bomb buildings or large structures and ring the authorities to tell everyone to get out to minimize casualties.

The Madrid bombings were, IIRC, traced back to some kind of AQ-lite.

fun fun fun (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3804936380592532933&q=in+the+navy) popcorn :D*hidden easter egg
Happy easter !!

No, not at all.

It wasn't ETA's style - they usually bomb buildings or large structures and ring the authorities to tell everyone to get out to minimize casualties.

The Madrid bombings were, IIRC, traced back to some kind of AQ-lite.

Wasn't the IRA like that, too? They'd phone ahead and make sure people had time to get out before they blew shit up.

No, not at all.

It wasn't ETA's style - they usually bomb buildings or large structures and ring the authorities to tell everyone to get out to minimize casualties.

The Madrid bombings were, IIRC, traced back to some kind of AQ-lite.

I remember the main thread on that here on NSG. :p

It was pretty obvious it was not ETA. While the Spanish police and gov spokesmen were babbling on about ETA I and several others posted that it was most likely a AQ cell. As it turned out to be.

It took them to Morocco...where there have also been bombings.

I would ask that you provide some support for these points before we go forward.

1: Homosexuality, and homosexual marriage, being "repugnant" and "immoral"

2: That Muslim countries give a damn about our policies toward gays.

Wasn't the IRA like that, too? They'd phone ahead and make sure people had time to get out before they blew shit up.

Sometimes. Military targets got no warning. Later bombings also lacked a warning. The murder in Enniskillen springs to mind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/8/newsid_2515000/2515113.stm

I would ask that you provide some support for these points before we go forward.

1: Homosexuality, and homosexual marriage, being "repugnant" and "immoral"

2: That Muslim countries give a damn about our policies toward gays.

Aww, c'mon, its too easy.

1. The Bible.

2. We're America.

:p

Thank you to all the people who posted cogent responses. I don't have enough time to answer your points in detail right now, but to obviate calls of "troll-and-run" from people such as Jocabia, I will respond tomorrow.

But for them to accept that which we hold dear, they must not be repelled by ghastly, immoral aberrations such as gay marriage -- that might cause them to run into terrorism's cold embrace.

Spain has gay marriage. Since they withdrew from Iraq, I haven't noticed any terrorist attacks.

Canada has gay marriage. I haven't noticed any terrorist attacks there, either.

I don't think gay marriage in the US ranks high in their concerns. The influence of Western capitalism, of which the US is an obvious symbol, and the US imperialism in the Middle East rank higher on their list.

Thank you to all the people who posted cogent responses. I don't have enough time to answer your points in detail right now, but to obviate calls of "troll-and-run" from people such as Jocabia, I will respond tomorrow.

Troll and stay is no better, frankly. Cogent responses should be reserved for cogent arguments. Your arguments are so far from this that you expect so much is really asking too much.

For example, you downplay discriminatory practices while attacking gays as the cause of terrorism. I'm not sure cogent is what pops into one's mind when examining such a ludicrous argument, particularly when every peice of evidence goes against it.

FreedomAndGlory: Have you been reading Dinesh D'Souza?

Thank you to all the people who posted cogent responses. I don't have enough time to answer your points in detail right now, but to obviate calls of "troll-and-run" from people such as Jocabia, I will respond tomorrow.
Considering you OPd and then disappeared for six pages, I don't think you really are in a position to complain.

Considering you OPd and then disappeared for six pages, I don't think you really are in a position to complain.

Yes, I took a one-hour break from posting. As incredible as it may seem to you, I don't spend all day in the front of the computer screen. And I am simply complaining about Jocabia's incessant trolling -- regardless of the length of my absences, that is a valid point.

FreedomAndGlory: Have you been reading Dinesh D'Souza?

I have not got around to that yet, but he presents a tantalizing premise.

Yes, I took a one-hour break from posting. As incredible as it may seem to you, I don't spend all day in the front of the computer screen. And I am simply complaining about Jocabia's incessant trolling -- regardless of the length of my absences, that is a valid point.
I never accused you of being troll-and-run. That was someone else. I accused you of trolling and explained why. I'm hardly the only one.

Amusingly, you only serve to conserve those beliefs. Come on, you pretend to spend so much time on wording and you didn't notice that your claims about putting Muslims on the front lines sound very much like a thinly veiled attempt to kill them off.

If you're not a troll, then, and I'm serious, consider the way you present your arguments. The overdramatic language, like "ghastly, immoral aberrations", is just not going to get anyone to take you seriously. I'll pretend for a moment and give this serious advice. Try posting your arguments so that resemble the way people actually speak and think.

Whether or not you're making an honest claim, no one is going to take that level of preaching seriously. Either you're a troll who doesn't believe the things he's claiming and is TRYING to sound absurd, or your a preacher here to spout their preachings and not discuss.

No one refers to the opposing ideas and those that they don't like in the ways you do in an honest effort at debate unless they have NO CLUE as to how human nature works.

So if you want to know why people are not taking you seriously, there it is. People weren't taking you seriously before you arrived. That you'd focus on me as the source of your problems is your issue, not mine.

I remember the main thread on that here on NSG. :p

It was pretty obvious it was not ETA. While the Spanish police and gov spokesmen were babbling on about ETA I and several others posted that it was most likely a AQ cell. As it turned out to be.

It took them to Morocco...where there have also been bombings.

Hell, if I recall correctly, blaming ETA was what got the existing government tossed out on its ass in favor of the Socialist party.

FreedomAndGlory: Have you been reading Dinesh D'Souza?

I mentioned the similarities earlier--eerie, huh?

you didn't notice that your claims about putting Muslims on the front lines sound very much like a thinly veiled attempt to kill them off.

That is simply your flawed interpretation of an innocuous statement. I said nothing whatsoever about a desire to kill Muslims -- in fact, the language I used was very positive in that post (ie, "encouraging" Muslims to join the army). Such a gross distortion of my message is utterly uncalled-for. I clearly meant that Muslims would be very adept at serving in a capacity of reassuring Iraqis that the US forces are compassionate and dedicated; nowhere did I even imply that I wished their demise. In fact, I even expounded upon my point in order to clarify any doubts about my intentions.

If you're not a troll, then, and I'm serious, consider the way you present your arguments. The overdramatic language, like "ghastly, immoral aberrations", is just not going to get anyone to take you seriously. I'll pretend for a moment and give this serious advice. Try posting your arguments so that resemble the way people actually speak and think.

My posts are constructed using the common vernacular and closely resemble how I actually think and speak. Perhaps you feel that bombastic orations are improper for such a venue; I disagree. The proud English language must be utilized fully, lest it atrophy with disuse. I strive to develop my arguments soundly and coherently; a secondary objective of mine is to develop my vocabulary and engage in mental exercise while posting. Unless I'm in a rush, I am not simply satisfied by conveying my point at the level of an abecedarian; while I do not wish to expatiate on a subject, I do like to elaborate in more gratifying language. I do not see why this would cause a problem.

you're a preacher here to spout their preachings and not discuss.

On the contrary -- I encourage honest debate, as has been the main thrust of several of my posts. Proper argument and my particular method of writing are not mutually exclusive. I present several points which are free to be picked apart as you desire; the sesquipedality has no bearing on this.

People weren't taking you seriously before you arrived.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand that part.

I mentioned the similarities earlier--eerie, huh?

Perhaps, but I am most certainly not he, nor am I related to him in any way.

Perhaps, but I am most certainly not he, nor am I related to him in any way.

Ah, but you're equally full of shit, and that makes you soul-mates, which is even better.

America has long been a shining beacon of freedom, illuminating the darkest and most authoritarian regions of the globe. Many have looked to this brilliance as their salvation and thus flocked to this country. Both in peacetime and in wartime, we have never endangered our superior moral standing in the world, but rather continued inspiring the downtrodden everywhere; this afforded us an added righteousness to our quest to purge evil from this planet. Our zeal in cleansing the world of the scourges which plague it has ballooned since the foundation of this nation. The air supporting this vast balloon is our virtuousness. With this glorious tradition behind us, we must be ever wary of threats which seek to divest us of our position atop the moral pedestal. All that's needed is one sharp prick to bring our moral crusade to a screeching halt.

Now, more than ever, as we embark on assorted anti-terrorism ventures, we must present an unbroken moral facade to the world, impervious to the treachery which is thrown at it. Unfortunately, under Bush's tenure, some unseemly legislation has been passed which outrages one's moral sense. This legislation has added fuel to the terrorists' hateful fire, has incurred vehement criticism from some who we previously thought of as allies, and has partitioned the country in two. This legislation has emboldened and assisted terrorists -- once some angst-ridden Arab youths heard of the ghastly horrors being perpetuated in the US, the supposed land of morality, they may have decided to fight against the US.

Clearly, the limited allowance of gay marriage has hurt us at home and abroad. Condoning a repugnant act has degraded our moral standing, especially in the Arab world. If we seek to subjugate the rogue nations of the Middle East, we have to offer their liberated peoples an effective substitute for their heinous, corrupt system of government. Yet they may be unwilling to allow us to do so, and may even actively fight against such a construction, if they know that our country has plunged so far into nihilism as to be willing to allow to gay men to be married. Our support would crumble, even among our staunchest Arab allies. To preserve our standing, our only reasonable course of action would be to abolish gay marriage. Then, perhaps, the Arab world would rejoice at our assiduous following of moral doctrines and would consequently lend us more support. That could be the trigger that allows us to win the war in Iraq. By remaining true to our proud traditions or morality, we shall prevail.

But if we obdurately continue upon this black path, we risk losing the war in Iraq and other conflicts. However, if this is the case, at least the people would then see with whom the blame lies -- not with neo-conservatives, but with those who advocated gay marriage.

Yo. It's nice to have you back, MTAE. :)

Ah, but you're equally full of shit, and that makes you soul-mates, which is even better.

You do realise this thread has been reported?

Wait... in order to defeat the terrorists we have to become as intolerant as they are?

Wait... in order to defeat the terrorists we have to become as intolerant as they are?

Seems like that's what some of these zealots want...

Yo. It's nice to have you back, MTAE. :)

Nah, MTAE's arguments were coherent.

Snip.

That is definitely the funniest thing I've read all day. Ahhhh, man.

Sadly for you, it's a bit too over the top to be taken seriously. It still makes for good trollery though (or should I say drollery?).

How I would love for such a person to actually exist, in all its backward and wrong-headed obtuseness. Trolls afford us the luxury to discuss with the more unreal form of stupidity. Lap it up.

It does remind one of "Operation Get Behind the Darkies" from the South Park movie.

Took the words right out of my mouth. That kinda hurt. :p

Took the words right out of my mouth. That kinda hurt. :p

Hope he didn't stretch your tongue.

Hope he didn't stretch your tongue.

I've got a tender touch. ;)

Nah, MTAE's arguments were coherent.

Plus, they didn't play on stupid American soundbyte topics.

MTAE advocated population growth to fight terrorists. Stupid, but it made you think.

He was certainly a troll, though.

re: the OP

If you think that killing gays or denying them basic human and legal rights is going to make the radical muslim world embrace us, think again. In order for that to happen, the entire country would have to convert to their particular brand of islam, kill everyone who disagreed, etc, etc.

And I think winning hearts and minds would be better accomplished by... oh, I dunno, educating people? Making sure they have power and water and jobs, you know, luxuries like that. Not having those things in Iraq is the main fuel for the insurgency. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is to the larger problem is, assuming there is just one. I think that establishing alternatives to the madrassas (I'm sure I mis-spelled that one) would be a good start. Also giving people a view of America that doesn't come from the endless crap that our popular culture pumps out might help.

But overall, the only thing that's going to help us 'win' the 'culture wars,' at home and abroad, is to be more tolerant, to open our arms to everyone who is or has been opressed, to love our neighbors and try to make the world better (without using guns, if we can avoid it). The only thing intolerance proves is the pettyness of those who hold such views.

You do realise this thread has been reported?

No shit there, Brainiac - you're the one who reported it, after all.

*clucks tongue disparagingly*

That is simply your flawed interpretation of an innocuous statement.

Again, if you're wondering who took something a certain way, you'd probably do better to read the names at the top of posts. I wasn't the first or the last to interpret it that way. I know that you like pretending like I'm the reason people are laughing at you, but it's pretty much the trollish histrionics that are causing that.

I said nothing whatsoever about a desire to kill Muslims -- in fact, the language I used was very positive in that post (ie, "encouraging" Muslims to join the army). Such a gross distortion of my message is utterly uncalled-for. I clearly meant that Muslims would be very adept at serving in a capacity of reassuring Iraqis that the US forces are compassionate and dedicated; nowhere did I even imply that I wished their demise. In fact, I even expounded upon my point in order to clarify any doubts about my intentions.

Uh-huh. I've got a bridge in San Francisco that I'm selling.


My posts are constructed using the common vernacular and closely resemble how I actually think and speak. Perhaps you feel that bombastic orations are improper for such a venue; I disagree. The proud English language must be utilized fully, lest it atrophy with disuse. I strive to develop my arguments soundly and coherently; a secondary objective of mine is to develop my vocabulary and engage in mental exercise while posting. Unless I'm in a rush, I am not simply satisfied by conveying my point at the level of an abecedarian; while I do not wish to expatiate on a subject, I do like to elaborate in more gratifying language. I do not see why this would cause a problem.

Again, do you think anyone buys this? If you think and speak like this, that's unfortunate. You think in absurd and misused metaphors? You tend towards using inflammatory and obnoxious language in your head? That's unfortunate.



On the contrary -- I encourage honest debate, as has been the main thrust of several of my posts. Proper argument and my particular method of writing are not mutually exclusive. I present several points which are free to be picked apart as you desire; the sesquipedality has no bearing on this.

If honest debate is what you're looking for let me show you some words to avoid -

shining beacon of freedom
illuminating the darkest and most authoritarian regions
this brilliance
their salvation
superior moral standing
inspiring the downtrodden
our quest to purge evil
cleansing the world of the scourges which plague it
vast balloon is our virtuousness
glorious tradition
atop the moral pedestal
one sharp prick
our moral crusade

That's the first paragraph. Even GWB would be laughing a person out the room that spoke like this. Hyperbole and histrionics are not an opening for debate. They're a closing.

If I picked up everything you've written the obvious absurdity would cover the page even if I edited out all of the filler words.

If you're geniunely trying to be taken seriously, this is honest advice.

Here's a comparison. Who do you think is more likely to be teken seriously by a girl at a bar. A guy who goes up and talks to her in plain language about why they're there and basically introduces themselves or a guy who walks up who cannot stop reciting poems to her and hyperbolous comparisons of her beauty to venus and the like.

It's not just us that finds this kind of behavior absurd. It's everyone with a pulse. Normal everyday adults use geniune language. When someone does something they don't like, they say "I don't like that" not "The skies have parted and rained upon my demeanor because I've encountered a demon parading as a ..." and so on.


I'm afraid I don't quite understand that part.

Ha. Mistyped. I meant to say people weren't taking you seriously before I arrived. You act like I'm the reason people think you're a troll. I wasn't the first to notice nor the first to accuse. The evidence people see is in your words, not mine.

And in true troll style, you've got time to argue with me about how you're not a troll, but not to address the replies you've said are reasonable. So much so that you post a little diatribe about how thankful you are for the posts you don't reply to while baiting me into further addressing your trollishness.

Okay, so, is FAG a troll or someone who is completely and utterly detached from reality? Well, regardless, his ideal world will never happen, so, he's powerless, thank God. Gays will marry. America will eventually quit this "manifest destiny" CRAP. And the world will become more and more liberal. The truth of this hurts you enough that you feel the need to decry it as if it were against God's wishes - You presume you know what God wants. Pride is a sin, but you're willing to forget about that if it makes you feel self-righteous. Too bad you are a big ZERO in power.

Goddamnit not again.
Agreed,


That's it, where is my "Ban this person" sign.
*Unfolds huge sign*

Ban FreedomAndGlory!

We can't win the hearts of minds of the Arab people if they don't fervently believe in the untarnished moral compass of the US. They can't believe in such an ideal if we allow horrendous deeds such as gay marriage to take place. Thus, they may be driven to resist our military incursions instead of supporting them; this severely constricts us and imperils the viability of our entire campaign.

Yeah, this pisses them off more than us arming Israel to kill the Palis and others that look like them. It pisses them off more than our recreation of governments more favorable to us by removing and assassinating their leaders. Gay marriage puts them over the edge because the murder and rape of the "liberated" were just an appetizer. Ok, I'm done feeding the troll.

FreedomAndGlory in all seriousness, how did you choose your name?

FreedomAndGlory in all seriousness, how did you choose your name?

Why, by picking the opposite of his agenda.

bravo!!!bravo!!!!!! the best speech i have heard and if u called this troll u are the true troll

Why, by picking the opposite of his agenda.

It's an honest question and you're not helping.

bravo!!!bravo!!!!!! the best speech i have heard and if u called this troll u are the true troll

A convincing argument if I've ever heard one. I completely reverse my position.

A convincing argument if I've ever heard one. I completely reverse my position.

hey dont mock me

It's an honest question and you're not helping.
It's part of his role of course. This guy is a troll "Roleplaying" a neoconservative.

The "Freedom and Glory" is to say "I'm one of those HARD CORE Patriots that believe everything that comes out the president's mouth."

hey dont mock me

Well, you didn't exactly provide any evidence, or at the very least, some kind of personal opinion based off of facts to support it - you simply said it was good. Although that in itself isn't "unacceptable" or anything, it's better to provide a reason for what you believe in, so that we can actually argue about something and not pointlessly spam each other about who's better and who's a troll.

hey dont mock me

I'm not. I'm mocking your argument. Or, that is to say, your lack of argument. If you have a point, please make it.

why should i make a point about how i feel? IT IS HOW I FEEL IM A RIGHTWINGER!!!!!:headbang:

why should i make a point about how i feel? IT IS HOW I FEEL IM A RIGHTWINGER!!!!!:headbang:

And what poster has their hand up your ass?

bravo!!!bravo!!!!!! the best speech i have heard and if u called this troll u are the true troll

hey dont mock me

why should i make a point about how i feel? IT IS HOW I FEEL IM A RIGHTWINGER!!!!!:headbang:

Is being right-wing becoming unanimous with the wanton assassination of the English language? Because you are not doing your kindred any favours with that kind of... I can't even call it language...

Is being right-wing becoming unanimous with the wanton assassination of the English language? Because you are not doing your kindred any favours with that kind of... I can't even call it language...
I don't know whether I prefer that or MTAEs verbal diarrhoea.

We can't win the hearts of minds of the Arab people if they don't fervently believe in the untarnished moral compass of the US. They can't believe in such an ideal if we allow horrendous deeds such as gay marriage to take place. Thus, they may be driven to resist our military incursions instead of supporting them; this severely constricts us and imperils the viability of our entire campaign.

You think it will win our hearts to be an authoritarian over bearing and repressive government? does it win our minds that THEY already are?

Maybe the solution is for people like you to move THERE and get what you are already proposing

America has long been a shining beacon of freedom,

"Long" = "50-60 years." In the context of governments and nations around the world, calling 50-60 years "long" is like when your 14-year-old refers to anybody over 25 as "old people."


illuminating the darkest and most authoritarian regions of the globe.

"Illuminating" = "funding and providing munitions to, provided they've got something we want."


Many have looked to this brilliance as their salvation and thus flocked to this country.

But they can't have any of our salvation, the dirty foreigners! IMMIGRATION REFORM NOW!!!


Both in peacetime and in wartime, we have never endangered our superior moral standing in the world, but rather continued inspiring the downtrodden everywhere; this afforded us an added righteousness to our quest to purge evil from this planet.

Pfft. Like we ever needed to DO anything to afford ourselves some righteousness. We're AMERICANS, folks. American is just an alternate spelling of AWESOME. Fact.


Our zeal in cleansing the world of the scourges which plague it has ballooned since the foundation of this nation. The air supporting this vast balloon is our virtuousness.

Noone has been more dedicated to filling our balloon of zeal with the hot air of virtue than Our Leader, King--er, President Bush.


With this glorious tradition behind us, we must be ever wary of threats which seek to divest us of our position atop the moral pedestal. All that's needed is one sharp prick to bring our moral crusade to a screeching halt.

John Stewart = one sharp prick.


Now, more than ever, as we embark on assorted anti-terrorism ventures, we must present an unbroken moral facade to the world, impervious to the treachery which is thrown at it.

Because, lord knows, American history has shown us that unquestioning conformity to current norms is the source of all our strength.


Unfortunately, under Bush's tenure, some unseemly legislation has been passed which outrages one's moral sense. This legislation has added fuel to the terrorists' hateful fire, has incurred vehement criticism from some who we previously thought of as allies, and has partitioned the country in two. This legislation has emboldened and assisted terrorists -- once some angst-ridden Arab youths heard of the ghastly horrors being perpetuated in the US, the supposed land of morality, they may have decided to fight against the US.

Wow, we're actually going to talk about the pro-torture, anti-Constitution BS being pushed upon us?


Clearly, the limited allowance of gay marriage has hurt us at home and abroad.

Oh, I should have known. It's always about the gays. They get all the attention.


Condoning a repugnant act has degraded our moral standing, especially in the Arab world.

To defeat the terrorists, we must make our domestic policy decisions based on what the terrorists would like to impose upon us!


If we seek to subjugate the rogue nations of the Middle East, we have to offer their liberated peoples an effective substitute for their heinous, corrupt system of government. Yet they may be unwilling to allow us to do so, and may even actively fight against such a construction, if they know that our country has plunged so far into nihilism as to be willing to allow to gay men to be married.

America's moral balloon must be carried ever-upward on the air currents of fundamentalist Islam!


Our support would crumble, even among our staunchest Arab allies. To preserve our standing, our only reasonable course of action would be to abolish gay marriage. Then, perhaps, the Arab world would rejoice at our assiduous following of moral doctrines and would consequently lend us more support. That could be the trigger that allows us to win the war in Iraq. By remaining true to our proud traditions or morality, we shall prevail.

America must remain true to our proud tradition of doing whatever the Arabs will like!


But if we obdurately continue upon this black path, we risk losing the war in Iraq and other conflicts.

Marriage = treason!


However, if this is the case, at least the people would then see with whom the blame lies -- not with neo-conservatives, but with those who advocated gay marriage.
Wars are not lost because of inept leaders, underfunding, grossly ignorant international policy, corruption, and complete failures on the part of our elected officials...they are lost because of monogamous gays!

-- SNIP --
Bottle has spoken. We can now go back under our rocks. ;)

Clearly, the limited allowance of gay marriage has hurt us at home and abroad. Condoning a repugnant act has degraded our moral standing, especially in the Arab world
I wholeheartedly agree. America's limited allowance of gay marriage is disgusting and hurts at home and abroad.

Condoning the repugnant act of imposing restrictions on gay marriage has degraded America's moral standing.

;)

We should ban marriage at international level. That would make people happy and won't discriminate gays.

We should ban marriage at international level. That would make people happy and won't discriminate gays.

Actually, if we just banned life, it would probably eliminate most of the problems caused by humanity.

Actually, if we just banned life, it would probably eliminate most of the problems caused by humanity.
In the words of FreedomAn, ahem, I mean Stalin, "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem."

Actually, if we just banned life, it would probably eliminate most of the problems caused by humanity.

Yeah, but then noone could keep the ban working if we do. We're all dead.

Bottle has spoken. We can now go back under our rocks. ;)
If Canada's a rock, then I must be getting back under my gravel...:eek:

If Canada's a rock, then I must be getting back under my gravel...:eek:

More like pebble...

Is being right-wing becoming unanimous with the wanton assassination of the English language? Because you are not doing your kindred any favours with that kind of... I can't even call it language...

You mean like using the word "unanimous" when you mean "synonymous". Unless you mean to say that they are of one mind (right-wingers and the assassination of the English language?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/synonymous
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unanimous

If you're going to make fun, you should be more careful.

You mean like using the word "unanimous" when you mean "synonymous". Unless you mean to say that they are of one mind (right-wingers and the assassination of the English language?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/synonymous
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unanimous

If you're going to make fun, you should be more careful.

I couldn't remember which to use. I was suffering from caffeine deficiency when I wrote that post. I was relying on my browser's crappy built-in spellchecker and not my natural one. I had started typing the proper one, but I was missing two key characters so it picked up on the wrong word.

Also, I wasn't making fun, I was trying to ask a question as to why the two seemed to be linked; related some how.

Odious and ignorant topic.

Odious and ignorant topic.

I'm sorry, did you expect anything different from him?

Hmmmm...


I foresee a great future in you, young troll. Much anger inside you, hmmm?

Young, delectably verbose anger!

Be sure to eat their heart to gain their courage. Their rich, tasty courage. *licks lips*

I can't be bothered reading the thread, was this a troll-and-run?

"Long" = "50-60 years." In the context of governments and nations around the world, calling 50-60 years "long" is like when your 14-year-old refers to anybody over 25 as "old people."

Oh I think you do the US a dis-service there....America has been a 'beacon' for an awful lot longer than just 50-60 years.

Wasn't the IRA like that, too? They'd phone ahead and make sure people had time to get out before they blew shit up.
Urmm sometimes, yeah. Usually for buildings full of people.

On the other hand, if it was one of those "suicide bomb the checkpoint" jobbies, then that's not what they did, no.

Hell, if I recall correctly, blaming ETA was what got the existing government tossed out on its ass in favor of the Socialist party.

That was just an unbelievable cock up...ETA had a modus operandi...that was as well known as that of the Red Army Faction.

While not the over riding reason the conservatives lost it definitely did not help and most likely aided the conservatives failure to win the election.

I just really could not comprehend the shit coming out of Madrid back then...I had a bad case of yellatatvitist.

Oh I think you do the US a dis-service there....America has been a 'beacon' for an awful lot longer than just 50-60 years.

A beacon of freedom? Are you f*cking kidding me? You KNOW we're talking about the country that put dictators in power all over Latin America, right? And, no, before you ask, it was NOT acceptable, it NEVER will be, no MATTER WHAT.

Urmm sometimes, yeah. Usually for buildings full of people.

On the other hand, if it was one of those "suicide bomb the checkpoint" jobbies, then that's not what they did, no.

Um...the IRA never used suicide bombers. In fact none of the Irish sectarian terror groups used suicide bombers.

As for warnings....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12527402&postcount=161

Coming back to suicide bombers...their origins are with the Tamil Tigers...the suicide bomber did not originate with the radical Muslims.

A beacon of freedom? Are you f*cking kidding me? You KNOW we're talking about the country that put dictators in power all over Latin America, right? And, no, before you ask, it was NOT acceptable, it NEVER will be, no MATTER WHAT.
I'm fairly sure that is why RC put 'beacon' in inverted commas.

I'm fairly sure that is why RC put 'beacon' in inverted commas.

We have a winner ;)

We have a winner ;)

Gomen ne... ^_^

Gomen ne... ^_^

Desu! (I think thats right???)

I am a cynical old bastard with a vicious sense of humour....and I love irony ;)

Desu! (I think thats right???)

(Well, we'd have to ask NERVUN. I do know Douitashimashite work, but so may Desu)

I am a cynical old bastard with a vicious sense of humour....and I love irony ;)

So am I, but I failed to notice the sarcasm...

(Well, we'd have to ask NERVUN. I do know Douitashimashite work, but so may Desu)


So am I, but I failed to notice the sarcasm...

Yeah....many do :p

WTF does gay marriage have to do with anything?

FreedomAndGlory is really Jerry Falwell.

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians ... the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"

Note the similar attitudes?

Yeah....many do :p

I'm lucky I didn't flame you, eh? ^_^

FreedomAndGlory is really Jerry Falwell.



Note the similar attitudes?

True. And, like Jerry Falwell, he's frustrated because neither can do a thing against the future, one in which marriage will be truly equal and all states will be secularized.

I'm lucky I didn't flame you, eh? ^_^

It would not be the first time LOL

Actually, if you only look at B and C, he sounds a lot like Dinesh D'Souza's last book, where he blames liberals for 9/11. D'Souza makes good money to come up with that kind of shit.

And of course the mighty Colbert got D'Souza to confess that yes, he agrees with Bin Laden's viewpoints.

:D

Nah, MTAE's arguments were coherent.

It is coherent. It is also bullshit.

And of course the mighty Colbert got D'Souza to confess that yes, he agrees with Bin Laden's viewpoints.

:D

What?!

I need to start watching Colbert again. But the bugger's on so late compared to my new hours.

America has long been a shining beacon of freedom, illuminating the darkest and most authoritarian regions of the globe. Many have looked to this brilliance as their salvation and thus flocked to this country. Both in peacetime and in wartime, we have never endangered our superior moral standing in the world, but rather continued inspiring the downtrodden everywhere; this afforded us an added righteousness to our quest to purge evil from this planet.
America is not the light and hope of the world, or a city upon a hill. It could be argued that America was seen in this role, in Europe, for a time between 1945 and 1966.

Those who criticise you remain your allies. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but America has as often been a source of evil as a purger of it. proof : http://www.soaw.org/

But if we obdurately continue upon this black path, we risk losing the war in Iraq and other conflicts. However, if this is the case, at least the people would then see with whom the blame lies -- not with neo-conservatives, but with those who advocated gay marriage.
True, Islamists hate gay marriage, but that is not their main concern. It's not their main concern. What is causing America's crumbling moral standing in the world is the torture programmes, the compassionless attitude to the Palestinians and the Sudanese, the failure to help in the fight against global climate change and the failure of the Iraq war.

You think homosexual marriage as an issue is anywhere near the size of the above? You're brainwashed, my boy.

Um...the IRA never used suicide bombers. In fact none of the Irish sectarian terror groups used suicide bombers.


Not suicide bombers as such, but when you kidnap someone's family at gunpoint under threat of killing them, and force someone to drive an explosive laden car into a checkpoint where it detonates killing the driver and those close by them it ain't far off. Sure, the bomber isn't a member of the organization, and they aren't hyped up for suicide, nonetheless, but the dividing line is a mere question of semantics: a suicide bomb by proxy.


Quick web search... ah, here we go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_Bomb

Not suicide bombers as such, but when you kidnap someone's family at gunpoint under threat of killing them, and force someone to drive an explosive laden car into a checkpoint where it detonates killing the driver and those close by them it ain't far off. Sure, the bomber isn't a member of the organization, and they aren't hyped up for suicide, nonetheless, but the dividing line is a mere question of semantics: a suicide bomb by proxy.


Quick web search... ah, here we go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_Bomb

Thats not a suicide mate....that is murder. There is no question of semantics involved. I don't think the drivers wanted to die.

re the Wiki link....to many 'citations needed' to be honest...

Thats not a suicide mate....that is murder. There is no question of semantics involved. I don't think the drivers wanted to die.

Hey, all I'm doing is referencing Yootopia's earlier comments, and explaining what he was talking about.

Hey, all I'm doing is referencing Yootopia's earlier comments, and explaining what he was talking about.

Is cool mate...

Also all the targets of these bombs were military and the IRA have never given warning when hitting those targets.

At the end of the day bombings are revolting but oh so effective :(

Why has this hideous thread last 200+ posts?