NationStates Jolt Archive

Ann Coulter calls it treason, Tammy Bruce calls it 'malignant narcissism' and liberals call it patriotism. Call it what you will, but there is no denying the fact that hating America has replaced race as the all determining reality for many Americans.

What would have been considered treason 40 years ago is now accepted as cutting edge commentary. Democrats appear to be rooting for defeat in Iraq as a way to defeat George Bush. Pundits routinely give terrorists the benefit of the doubt while excoriating America. Hollywood stars denounce their homeland on foreign soil. Academics impute a moral equivalence between terrorists and U.S. soldiers and calling the President of the United States a liar is now a sure way to cement ones bona fide's in the growing secular progressive community. And on and on it goes.

One puzzling fact stands out. Many of these well educated, passionate critics of America believe in their hearts that they are patriotic. The logical disconnect between 'supporting the troops' while undermining them doesn't compute. Claiming the label of patriot while actively undermining their own country doesn't strike them as conflicting...

How to make sense of this disconnect?

Shelby Steele, in his 2006 book, 'White Guilt', made the case that every generation coming of age goes through a period of adolescent rebellion. Challenging the powers that be is an important rite of passage and a valuable life lesson. Unfortunately, the '60's baby boomer' generation that is currently in charge of most of our institutions, staged their adolescent rebellion at the one time in history they had a chance of winning the battle against the 'establishment.'

In the 60's, America had just acknowledged and apologized for the sin of slavery. As Steele explains, "After America admitted to what was worst about itself, there was not enough authority left to support what was best." As a result, the baby boom generation is the first generation to win this adolescent rebellion against its elders. Their "rite of passage to maturity was cut short and they were falsely inflated instead of humbled." Sound familiar?

Couple America's loss of moral authority with the escalation of the Vietnam War and voila, you have broadbased confirmation of America's inherent evil and oppressiveness. This is the worldview that has now become reality to most Liberals, and through them, to much of the rest of the world. Thank-you, baby boomers.

Having toppled the 'establishment,' liberals set out to restore America's moral authority. To impose, unchallenged, their vision of what America could and should be, unhampered by tradition, lessons of the past or any sense of humility. In short, liberals set out to redefine reality, with a focus on 'social justice'.

Only one problem. Instead of establishing an earthly utopia, every solution they imposed on America has failed. From the war on poverty to 'whole language' to abolishing war to establishing equality of outcome to affirmative action. All the theories that looked so fine on paper just didn't seem to work in the real world. Their Rousseauian strategy of emphasis on passion instead of reason just didn't cut the mustard. No wonder they're so angry.

Whitaker Chambers once said that the most important choice a man would ever make would be the choice between man and God.

Having chosen man over God, liberals, secular progressives if you will, naturally believe that any catastrophe, like Katrina, global warming, racism, etc., is man's fault. Based on trendy liberal reasoning, only those with power can oppress. Thus the blame for all the world's ills is placed right at the feet of America, the world's only super power. It's all our fault. Looked at through the eyes of a liberal, it makes a perverted kind of sense and offers one explanation for the unreasoning hatred many liberals have for America.

It stands to reason if man is responsible for all these problems, then man should be able to solve them. The inability of secular progressives to solve all the world's problems is a direct challenge to their core beliefs. To acknowledge their inability to achieve utopia on earth would invalidate a lifetime of passionately held beliefs. Hence the desperate effort to place blame on someone human. Someone other than themselves.

Enter George Bush. The greatest threat of all to the worldview of secular progressives.

No wonder they hate him. He exemplifies personal responsibility over moral relativism. He bases his opinions on reason, not emotion. He is a man of God and stands for all the traditional values the SP's have worked so hard to replace. His rejection of the Kyoto Treaty was a direct affront to the secular progressive's new religion of environmentalism. The mere mention of George Bush in liberal circles is akin to pushing a puppy's nose in his own mess.

By focusing on Bush hatred, liberals succeed in shifting the focus from their own failed policies. Much the same way third world dictators do. (Having a common enemy is a very powerful unifying factor.) By concentrating on all the real and imagined failings of Bush and America, the liberals can stay in their cocoon, safe from examination and analysis. This is called cognitive dissonance and is a cherished staple of secular progressives in their quest to redefine reality. Reality is what they say it is. End of debate. Sound familiar?

In our soundbite world, it's only natural to want easy answers to complex questions. Understanding the phenomenon of anti-Americanism and Bush hatred doesn't lend itself to an easy answer. But it is a subject that needs to be addressed and understood before America is conquered from within.


Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com


So I could point out all the flaws and stupidities in this rather typical opinion piece, but what I thought most amusing - and horrifying, since some people will actually swallow it up like it was God Himself splooging - was the implication that not only do "secularists" "blame man" for "catastrophes" like "racism" (apparently that's really God's doing), and "blame Bush" for a lack of "utopia" and for him being a "man of God" and "reason," but will CONQUER AMERICA!

But maybe I'm just using "trendy liberal reasoning" like logic and knowledge of the English language and am failing to see past my own supposed "cognitive dissonance" and obvious desire to "undermine the troops." What do you make of this?

AND WILL DESTROY IT!

Some people keep saying that like it were a bad thing.

What do you make of this?

The same bullshit we've seen for the latter part of the 20th Century...and the first few years of the 21st...

Liberals...Conservatives...its really old and its starting to rot

I have to agree with Fass.

I also have the urge to lick your ear, GT.

I'd say it is chilling, although remarkably accurate.

I'd say it is chilling, although remarkably accurate.

*Yawn*
You're no MTAE.

*Yawn*
You're no MTAE.
Ha, how ironic.

*Yawn*
You're no MTAE.

No, I'm not. What's your point? That you don't have the attention span to read 8 words without yawning? Get real.

so it's the baby-doomers' faults! Let's get 'em! :sniper:
w00t first time using the sniper

The same bullshit we've seen for the latter part of the 20th Century...and the first few years of the 21st...

Liberals...Conservatives...its really old and its starting to rot

*yawn*
*yawn*
*yawn*
*yawn*
*yawn*

You're no Noam Chomsky.

Wow, thats one big rant of bullshit if i ever saw one :eek:

this part made me laugh

Enter George Bush. The greatest threat of all to the worldview of secular progressives.

No wonder they hate him. He exemplifies personal responsibility over moral relativism. He bases his opinions on reason, not emotion. He is a man of God and stands for all the traditional values the SP's have worked so hard to replace. His rejection of the Kyoto Treaty was a direct affront to the secular progressive's new religion of environmentalism. The mere mention of George Bush in liberal circles is akin to pushing a puppy's nose in his own mess.

AND WILL DESTROY IT!

Some people keep saying that like it were a bad thing.

Yeah I guess death and destruction are kinda bad things, Fass. I mean that's what you always seem to imply when you oppose US foreign policies.

Yeah I guess death and destruction are kinda bad things, Fass. I mean that's what you always seem to imply when you oppose US foreign policies.

It is exactly that foreign policy which merits the karma. Like people in the USA do not give a fuck about, say, Iraqi "collateral damage", nor do I of that in the USA. The difference being, of course, that Iraqis generally aren't culpable...

this part made me laugh

That part of the article has made me stupider for having read it.

It is exactly that foreign policy which merits the karma. Like people in the USA do not give a fuck about, say, Iraqi "collateral damage", nor do I of that in the USA. The difference being, of course, that Iraqis generally aren't culpable...

I prefer to rise above the 'brown skinned deaths are not something to concern us'. I don't want yanks to die any more than I want Iraqis to die.

But the kind of destruction that means and end to ridiculous religious fundamentalism, anti-environmentalism, and general douchebaggery amongst the upper echelons of the US administration? THAT kind of destruction I await with baited breath.

This just in: Liberals are not fond of Conservative America.


In other news, leading scientists in the field of Redundancy have discovered startling evidence that suggests water is wet.

"We really could not be more shocked right now"-Dr. Obvious

It is exactly that foreign policy which merits the karma. Like people in the USA do not give a fuck about, say, Iraqi "collateral damage",

Karma? What kind of superstitious religious bullshit is this?

And who says people in the US don't give a fuck? I give a fuck. Stop being a douche.

nor do I of that in the USA.

Yeah, thanks. And many wishes of praise and good health to you and your family, too.

AND WILL DESTROY IT!

Some people keep saying that like it were a bad thing.

Yeah, not like the collapse of the world economy is a big deal...

It is exactly that foreign policy which merits the karma. Like people in the USA do not give a fuck about, say, Iraqi "collateral damage", nor do I of that in the USA. The difference being, of course, that Iraqis generally aren't culpable...
Question: _________ wrongs make a right.

The correct answer is:
a) true
b) false

your answer is a nonsequitur Fass. or at least hypocritical. you very blindly draw distinctions between whom you think it is ok to kill. http://www.glumbert.com/media/civclash

Yeah, not like the collapse of the world economy is a big deal...

I'm no economist, but I very much doubt the world economy would collapse if America ceased to be for some reason. It'd take quite a hit, but we'd struggle on.

In other news, leading scientists in the field of Redundancy have discovered startling evidence that suggests water is wet.

"We really could not be more shocked right now"-Dr. Obvious
Again?! Shit, how many times per year to people have to prove water is wet?

I hate Nancy Morgan.

I prefer to rise above the 'brown skinned deaths are not something to concern us'. I don't want yanks to die any more than I want Iraqis to die.

There's a difference between "wanting" and "not really giving a fuck if they do".

But the kind of destruction that means and end to ridiculous religious fundamentalism, anti-environmentalism, and general douchebaggery amongst the upper echelons of the US administration? THAT kind of destruction I await with baited breath.

Ditto, but I cannot shake the sense of fairness that would come if this "war on terror" were to actually become a war for the populace of the USA. Maybe it would teach them what wars actually are and they might go a decade without starting a new one? Hundreds of thousand of civilian foreigners dead in their wars seem not to matter - I wonder if death amongst their own civilians would (I mean, barely 3000 of theirs seems to justify anything), or if they would continue to nourish this lust for war so unbecoming of a claimed "peace-loving" people?

I'm no economist, but I very much doubt the world economy would collapse if America ceased to be for some reason. It'd take quite a hit, but we'd struggle on.

And I'm sure we'd all LOVE to go through the 1930s again.

There's a difference between "wanting" and "not really giving a fuck if they do".

You know, if you weren't gay, you'd have made a great Nazi.

There's a difference between "wanting" and "not really giving a fuck if they do".



Ditto, but I cannot shake the sense of fairness that would come if this "war on terror" were to actually become a war for the populace of the USA. Maybe it would teach them what wars actually are and they might go a decade without starting a new one? Hundreds of thousand of civilian foreigners dead in their wars seem not to matter - I wonder if death amongst their own civilians would (I mean, barely 3000 of theirs seems to justify anything), or if they would continue to nourish this lust for war so unbecoming of a claimed "peace-loving" people?

Well, all good points. I would give a fuck...but yes, I'd hope that at least something would be learned if it did happen.

Karma? What kind of superstitious religious bullshit is this?

I mean it as "comeuppance".

And who says people in the US don't give a fuck?

The repeated starting of wars by the USA.

Yeah, thanks. And many wishes of praise and good health to you and your family, too.

Oh, "liberate" me, why don't you, because we all know what "wishes of praise and good health" from the USA are worth.

You know, if you weren't gay, you'd have made a great Nazi.

Tell that to all the fucks claiming Iraqi deaths are necessary.

Again?! Shit, how many times per year to people have to prove water is wet?
More often than you'd think. But once we figure out this whole "Is fire hot?" thing we'll be able to really look at wetness in all it's forms.
And I'm sure we'd all LOVE to go through the 1930s again.

Of course not. But we could, and come out smiling on the other side.

Tell that to all the fucks claiming Iraqi deaths are necessary.

Well, at least it's not core to their ideology.

Based on trendy liberal reasoning, only those with power can oppress.

I would be very much impressed to see someone be oppressed by those without power. It would seem that one would go with the other but I guess common sense doesn't always work with some people...

You know, if you weren't gay, you'd have made a great Nazi.

With those bitching-hot uniforms? I would have dazzled, darling!

With those bitching-hot uniforms? I would have dazzled, darling!

I was thinking you'd be more of a desk job.

I was thinking you'd be more of a desk job.

I can make most any position work for me.

So I could point out all the flaws and stupidities in this rather typical opinion piece, but what I thought most amusing - and horrifying, since some people will actually swallow it up like it was God Himself splooging - was the implication that not only do "secularists" "blame man" for "catastrophes" like "racism" (apparently that's really God's doing), and "blame Bush" for a lack of "utopia" and for him being a "man of God" and "reason," but will CONQUER AMERICA!

But maybe I'm just using "trendy liberal reasoning" like logic and knowledge of the English language and am failing to see past my own supposed "cognitive dissonance" and obvious desire to "undermine the troops." What do you make of this?

Lolz. She's from RightBias.com. (In all seriousness, I completely agree with you)

GT - Just let Fass rot. He likes it when people pay attention.

I mean it as "comeuppance".

Nah, I'm pretty sure you made an allusion to your superstitious and faith-based moral belief that it's OK to kill someone, as long as that person "deserves" it.

The repeated starting of wars by the USA.

That's me, going on all the time about how the Iraqis deserve it, how you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and how if we leave Iraq, The Terrorists Win. Cuz I live in the US, therefore I support everything the government does, because we in the US have a hive-minded collective consciousness which, incidentally, justifies collective punishment.

You know, between you and people like Freedom And Glory, it's no surprise that there's so many wars. Neither of you give a SHIT about dead people. Only when it's in your own, petty, political bias do you care. And I doubt very much even then.

Oh, "liberate" me, why don't you.

Nah, I'll just point out your hypocrisy and mock you for having stupid beliefs.

Well, at least it's not core to their ideology.

Um...rethink that, thanks. The essential factor is not the nationality of the dead.

Um...rethink that, thanks. The essential factor is not the nationality of the dead.

Say what now?

He likes it when people pay attention.
We're all attention whores on NS. You of all people should know that.

GT - Just let Fass rot. He likes it when people pay attention.

At times, I've thought that Fass might just be a troll. Being gay is a little convenient, it prevents him from being put under the umbrella of most major frowned-upon ideologies.

Say what now?

"At least it's not core to their ideology".

Bitch, please. WAR is an ideology, the nationalities of the dead matter not.

So yes, it is in fact core to their ideology.

Based on trendy liberal reasoning
Aha! I spy doubleplusungood Liberal thoughtcrime.

But maybe I'm just using "trendy liberal reasoning" like logic and knowledge of the English language and am failing to see past my own supposed "cognitive dissonance" and obvious desire to "undermine the troops." What do you make of this?

That by not closing your eyes, powering down your brain and accepting what the current government tells you, you are in fact, helping the terrorists and liberals destroy America. I guess many of us are guilty of this. Should we turn ourselves in to Homeland Security? :(

"At least it's not part of their ideology".

Bitch, please. WAR is an ideology, the nationalities of the dead matter not.

So yes, it is in fact a part of their ideology.

Oh please, war is not an ideology. It's an action at best, and a lot of the time it's just a concept. It's like calling "shotput" or "Belgium" an ideology.

At times, I've thought that Fass might just be a troll. Being gay is a little convenient, it prevents him from being put under the umbrella of most major frowned-upon ideologies.

Yes, because no real person could possibly oppose US agression. That's just crazy talk!

AND WILL DESTROY IT!

Some people keep saying that like it were a bad thing.

I have to agree with Fass.

I also have the urge to lick your ear, GT.

And I have the urge to lick Fass' ear.

Oh please, war is not an ideology. It's an action at best, and a lot of the time it's just a concept. It's like calling "shotput" or "Belgium" an ideology.

Hilarious.

What fuels war? Ideologies. What sustains war? Ideology. Why do sane people seem willing to die for 'their country'? Ideology.

The dead are meaningless...the doing is all that counts, and it is ALL about ideology.

I'm sorry you seem unable to grasp such a simple concept.

We're all attention whores on NS. You of all people should know that.

He's better at it. Besides, he has that natural aura of jackass.

At times, I've thought that Fass might just be a troll. Being gay is a little convenient, it prevents him from being put under the umbrella of most major frowned-upon ideologies.

I'm pretty sure he's real, he acts like a person with people he likes.

Nah, I'm pretty sure you made an allusion to your superstitious and faith-based moral belief that it's OK to kill someone, as long as that person "deserves" it.

Just deserts, be they of "divine" nature or a logical consequence of one's behaviour, I don't care, as long as they are a result.

That's me, going on all the time about how the Iraqis deserve it, how you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and how if we leave Iraq, The Terrorists Win. Cuz I live in the US, therefore I support everything the government does, because we in the US have a hive-minded collective consciousness which, incidentally, justifies collective punishment.

Oh, tell that to Afghanistan. What? Despite the consequence of the non-Taliban dead it was still invaded and it seen as "good" as long as the Taliban were done away with (which, of course, they weren't following this trend of failure with which USA wars have come to be associated)? Don't you want to be "liberated" like they were? Well, tough luck it would seem, since their wishes weren't considered, why should yours?

You know, between you and people like Freedom And Glory, it's no surprise that there's so many wars. Neither of you give a SHIT about dead people. Only when it's in your own, petty, political bias do you care. And I doubt very much even then.

I don't live in a nation that cannot go a decade without starting a new war, so the "many wars" thing goes right back at you.

Nah, I'll just point out your hypocrisy and mock you for having stupid beliefs.

Go on! You mock so poorly, I rather enjoy the amusement.

And I have the urge to lick Fass' ear.

*gently, but firmly, cajoles your head downwards*

I'm not into ear play.

I love how outraged even the most ardent anti-Bush yank gets when a non-yank talks about the US.

It's like...hey, I can pick on my siblings, but YOU'D BETTER NOT!

Hilarious.

What fuels war? Ideologies. What sustains war? Ideology. Why do sane people seem willing to die for 'their country'? Ideology.

The dead are meaningless...the doing is all that counts, and it is ALL about ideology.

I'm sorry you seem unable to grasp such a simple concept.

No, MONEY fuels and sustains (which are the same thing anyway) war. Sane people are willing to die for their country because either they joined the army for money, or in a big war, they actually enjoy their civil liberties which they're not getting while being occupied by whoever.

People don't go to war because they want war. People go to war to make money. That's why America has a war every decade or so.

I love how outraged even the most ardent anti-Bush yank gets when a non-yank talks about the US.

It's like...hey, I can pick on my siblings, but YOU'D BETTER NOT!

And, how suddenly, people should give a fuck that they don't agree with the policies of their nation - as if that somehow mattered when other nations met with their retribution? Oh, but I forget, USA citizens are supposed to be "special, unique little flowers" whose opinions matter in the large scale of things.

Hilarious.

What fuels war? Ideologies. What sustains war? Ideology. Why do sane people seem willing to die for 'their country'? Ideology.

The dead are meaningless...the doing is all that counts, and it is ALL about ideology.

I'm sorry you seem unable to grasp such a simple concept.

While 'war' may not be an ideology, Militarism certainly is - and it is one that I wholeheartedly disavow. It has never caused anything other than trouble, and frankly - we're capable of far greater things than polishing boots, marching in queue and deducing more efficient methods for murder and mutilation.

No, I'm not. What's your point? That you don't have the attention span to read 8 words without yawning? Get real.

When those 8 words reflect mindless idiocy it is sometimes really tiring

While 'war' may not be an ideology, Militarism certainly is - and it is one that I wholeheartedly disavow. It has never caused anything other than trouble, and frankly - we're capable of far greater things than polishing boots, marching in queue and deducing more efficient methods for murder and mutilation.

I didn't want to expand beyond one syllable. War is a fine synonym :P

And I heartily agree. I don't support ANYONE's militarism, US or not.

And I heartily agree. I don't support ANYONE's militarism, US or not.

I thought you were into uniforms...

I love how outraged even the most ardent anti-Bush yank gets when a non-yank talks about the US.

It's like...hey, I can pick on my siblings, but YOU'D BETTER NOT!

Hey, for me as long as someone doesn't say something stupid like "the US is EVIL , that we cause ALL the worlds problems and other such bullshit, they can go right ahead and say what they want and won't get attacked by me. Of course I can't speak for anyone else, perhaps they have some kneejerk reaction when someone says disparaging things about this country. Their problem.

i laughed so hard.

I suppose it could be, but that comment was made in reference to my post, not that of some mindless idiot.

...
>>
<<

When those 8 words reflect mindless idiocy it is sometimes really tiring

I suppose it could be, but that comment was made in reference to my post, not that of some mindless idiot.

Just deserts, be they of "divine" nature or a logical consequence of one's behaviour, I don't care, as long as they are a result.

I think you meant "desserts."

But I'm wondering how you think the death of, for example, a 3 year old girl is the logical consequence of her own behavior simply because she was born in the USA.

Oh, tell that to Afghanistan. What? Despite the consequence of the non-Taliban dead it was still invaded and it seen as "good" as long as the Taliban were done away with (which, of course, they weren't following this trend of failure with which USA wars have come to be associated)? Don't you want to be "liberated" like they were? Well, tough luck it would seem, since their wishes weren't considered, why should yours?

Did I invade Afghanistan? Did I support the invasion? No. My wishes WERENT considered, and yet you would have me dead simply because I live here.

I don't live in a nation that cannot go a decade without starting a new war, so the "many wars" thing goes right back at you.

Sure, in the sense of a tu quoque fallacy.

In the sense that while some people in my nation support death and destruction, so do you. You're all the same, it seems, and your only excuse is that hey, there's someone just like you on the opposite side. I wish I could say I expected better from you than this heap of illogic and idiocy, but I don't. You're the sort of unreasoning fool the unreasoning fool who wrote the propaganda article is talking about. Each of you play into the other's hands, and neither of you does jack shit to stop the death, because neither of you WANT to. You're too happy to be "right."


Go on! You mock so poorly, I rather enjoy the amusement.

Oh no, are my mocking skills not up to the standards of a professional troll? Darn. Now why don't you go somewhere and be relevant.

I love how outraged even the most ardent anti-Bush yank gets when a non-yank talks about the US.

It's like...hey, I can pick on my siblings, but YOU'D BETTER NOT!

I have no problem with people critiscizing the U.S. when it deserves to be criticized, but I have a real problem with people celebrating the concept of violence against Americans, or blaming all Americans for the Shrub. The first is rank and disgusting hypocrisy, the second is sheer ignorance.

At a certain point, I've come to the conclusion that there are some people who are going to complain about anything the U.S. does, regardless of what it is, and that worrying about my own is much more important than trying to take those people seriously. Fass is a perfect example of this. More "Yanks" be they anti-Bush or pro-Bush should practice this.

I love how outraged even the most ardent anti-Bush yank gets when a non-yank talks about the US.

It's like...hey, I can pick on my siblings, but YOU'D BETTER NOT!

U.S. government =/= all U.S. citizens.
That is all.

I love how outraged even the most ardent anti-Bush yank gets when a non-yank talks about the US.

It's like...hey, I can pick on my siblings, but YOU'D BETTER NOT!

Well it's more like, I'm against innocent people being killed and shit getting blown up. Fass is OK with either as long as they're Americans. One of us is being consistent. The other is not.

Well it's more like, I'm against innocent people being killed and shit getting blown up. Fass is OK with either as long as they're Americans. One of us is being consistent. The other is not.

*shrugs*

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not going to speak for Fass, but I know it amuses him to be labelled.

I think you meant "desserts."

No, sweety, since I speak a language called English in this thread:

Main Entry: 3de·sert
Pronunciation: di-'z&rt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English deserte, from Anglo-French, from feminine of desert, past participle of deservir to deserve
1 : the quality or fact of deserving reward or punishment
2 : deserved reward or punishment -- usually used in plural <got their just deserts>

I'm sure there are remedial classes in it that you could take.

But I'm wondering how you think the death of, for example, a 3 year old girl is the logical consequence of her own behavior simply because she was born in the USA.

As I said, ask the children who have fallen victim to USA bombs. "Collateral damage" is such a sweeping word.

Did I invade Afghanistan? Did I support the invasion? No. My wishes WERENT considered, and yet you would have me dead simply because I live here.

Did they fly planes into a building? Did they support the Taliban? No. Their wishes WEREN'T considered, and yet your nation would have them dead simply because they live there.

Sure, in the sense of a tu quoque fallacy.

Except, of course, my nation has enjoyed peace for as long as yours has existed...

In the sense that while some people in my nation support death and destruction, so do you. You're all the same, it seems, and your only excuse is that hey, there's someone just like you on the opposite side. I wish I could say I expected better from you than this heap of illogic and idiocy, but I don't. You're the sort of unreasoning fool the unreasoning fool who wrote the propaganda article is talking about. Each of you play into the other's hands, and neither of you does jack shit to stop the death, because neither of you WANT to. You're too happy to be "right."

What? It's not fair that your nation's actions should lead to consequences for the populace of your nation? Waaah! Your populace has gone without that exact consequence for half a century. Enough is enough - there comes a time when the bully gets to be punched in the nose.

Oh no, are my mocking skills not up to the standard

Really, they're not.

I hear that all liberals enjoy gay sex and won't even eat apple pies or go to baseball games.

I hear that all liberals enjoy gay sex and won't even eat apple pies or go to baseball games.

Are those apple pies vegan?

I hear that all liberals enjoy gay sex and won't even eat apple pies or go to baseball games.

*gasp*


Have we been found out! :eek: :p

*gasp*


Have we been found out! :eek: :p

Yup.

After all, everyone knows liberals like to have gay sex while eating French pastries at curling events.

I'd like some more gay sex please.

Do I have to wear 'liberal' on my shirt?

What it seems to come down to is this: America cannot survive without a war of some sort every 10 years or so. Give whatever reasons you want for it, the country and economy would fall apart nonetheless.

There. Dissect away. I know someone will.

I'd like some more gay sex please.

Do I have to wear 'liberal' on my shirt?


'Secular Progressive' will suffice, I'm sure. :p

As I said, ask the children who have fallen victim to USA bombs. "Collateral damage" is such a sweeping word.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


Did they fly planes into a building? Did they support the Taliban? No. Their wishes WEREN'T considered, and yet your nation would have them dead simply because they live there.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Except, of course, my nation has enjoyed peace for as long as yours has existed...

Doesn't seem to change the fact that you support killing innocent people. And I don't. Funny how that seems to work, eh?


What? It's not fair that your nation's actions should lead to consequences to the populace of your nation? Waaah! Your populace has gone without that exact consequence for half a century. Enough is enough - there comes a time when the bully gets to be punched in the nose.

Only you could compare murdering children with punching a bully in the nose.


Really, they're not.

I guess I'll just have to be content with proving you have no grasp of logic or conscience. You and the other trolls can pat yourselves on the back for your ever-so-witty retorts.

Yup.

After all, everyone knows liberals like to have gay sex while eating French pastries at curling events.

Must be that and my library of Michael Moore and Al Franken books. :p

This is all true. They want to destroy America completly. For one thing they belive that George Bush is a bigger threat to society than terrorist who killed over 5000 people. And even after this horrible tragedy while the rest of America was grieving, they blamed George Bush for the attacks. I bet that made the familys of those who died fell alot better. And they think that people like Michael Moore are heros. And Michael Moore hates America. In fact, here's what he said about his fellow Americans when he was speaking in Canada "I have no doubt that they (Americans) are the dumbest people in the world". And they belive he's a patriot. Am I missing something here? And they love corporations like the ACLU, who they belive to be the "savior" of the nation. Even though the ACLU wants the US to be an Anarchy, wants to eliminate all Christianity in America, supports NAMBLA, and countless other horrible things. So they hate America, but belive that they will save it. That is truly pathetic.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, and wanting something to happen to you and saying, 'you know, there's a bit of justice in that' are two different things.

Now may I remind you of all the times you have wished horrible things upon racists? Two wrongs don't make a right, and sometimes in anger we say things that we wouldn't actually support.

This is all true. They want to destroy America completly. For one thing they belive that George Bush is a bigger threat to society than terrorist who killed over 5000 people. And even after this horrible tragedy while the rest of America was grieving, they blamed George Bush for the attacks. I bet that made the familys of those who died fell alot better. And they think that people like Michael Moore are heros. And Michael Moore hates America. In fact, here's what he said about his fellow Americans when he was speaking in Canada "I have no doubt that they (Americans) are the dumbest people in the world". And they belive he's a patriot. Am I missing something here? And they love corporations like the ACLU, who they belive to be the "savior" of the nation. Even though the ACLU wants the US to be an Anarchy, wants to eliminate all Christianity in America, supports NAMBLA, and countless other horrible things. So they hate America, but belive that they will save it. That is truly pathetic.

You just proved Michael Moore right, congratulations.

Yes, barely, and that difference doesn't refute a thing I've said.

Read my edit.

I'm pointing out that you are not above logical inconsistency.

Yes, and wishing something on you and saying, 'you know, there's a bit of justice in that' are two different things.

Yes, barely, and that difference doesn't refute a thing I've said.

Must be that and my library of Michael Moore and Al Franken books. :p

Hey, it's better than Libertarians! They like to pleasure themselves with dollar bills, whilst eating cheques (better than eating Czechs, I suppose), and watching the suffering of their sla- er... workers. And that's not even talking about the rooms full of Ayn Rand books. *shudders* :p

Now may I remind you of all the times you have wished horrible things upon racists? Two wrongs don't make a right, and sometimes in anger we say things that we wouldn't actually support.

Wishing horrible things upon racists is different. A racist has a belief, a belief against which I feel horrible things ARE deserved. Just being an American is NOT the same, in this case the same as supporting the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq. But why let a little fact like that get in the way of this glorious America-bashing generalization troll scheme Fass has?

You just proved Michael Moore right, congratulations.

No, I'm talking about Liberals not the rest of America.

I'd like some more gay sex please.

Do I have to wear 'liberal' on my shirt?

Get a liberal tattoo on your chest and go topless. Everyone knows liberals are out to warp our children's mind's by showing the nudity *nods*

No, I'm talking about Liberals not the rest of America.

Yes, and he's saying that your stupid assertions proove that Michael Moore was correct about Americans. He's wrong, of course, but that's only because you and your kind are quickly becoming a more and more irrelevant group in American politics.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Repeated wrongs should not go unpunished for 50 years.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Repeated wrongs should not go unpunished for 50 years.

If children of other countries can be bombed by the USA, I don't see why USA children should be special and merit the sparing of the USA in a war.

Doesn't seem to change the fact that you support killing innocent people. And I don't. Funny how that seems to work, eh?

As I said, there is a difference between "not giving a fuck if they do" and "supporting it". Would I support an attack on the USA? No. Would I be sympathetic to the victims of that attack? Not, much, no, since USA citizens aren't more deserving of that sympathy than those of Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam. The latter are, of course, much more numerous, so exqueeze me if I have to prioritise whom to pity and don't choose the country that continues to cause suffering to others time and time and time again.

Only you could compare murdering children with punching a bully in the nose.

When that bully has the deaths of almost uncountable children on his conscience and has the gall to then proclaim that he is a force of "good" in the world, and that because of the innocence of his own children he should be spared from the consequences of his actions, well, he merits a punch in the face.

I guess I'll just have to be content with proving you have no grasp of logic or conscience. You and the other trolls can pat yourselves on the back for your ever-so-witty retorts.

They are witty, aren't they? I don't know how I do it - they come so effortlessly.

*waits for you to thank him for the English lesson, hopes you learnt something*

Proof that liberalism has evolved into liberal fascism (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Time_for_Nintendo/index.php?showtopic=436&st=0)

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/photos/uncategorized/038551184101_aa240_sclzzzzzzz_.jpg

Wishing horrible things upon racists is different. A racist has a belief, a belief against which I feel horrible things ARE deserved. Just being an American is NOT the same, in this case the same as supporting the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq. But why let a little fact like that get in the way of this glorious America-bashing generalization troll scheme Fass has?

Ah, so it's okay to wish horrible things upon people you judge deserve it?

Wow. How totally unlike what you are accusing Fass of.

Oh wait. No it's not.

You just think your criteria is better.

Well hey, don't we all.

You accused me of not standing up? Well, I have never supported murder, and I have never attempted to justify the murder of anyone based on my particular criteria of 'who deserves it'.

I don't give a flying fuck as to the nationality of those doing the killing...they disgust me regardless. I DO care about the ones dying. And right now, the bulk of those people dying are NOT US citizens. So forgive me for not crying a river for the US.

corporations like ACLU


Lol.

Yes, and he's saying that your stupid assertions proove that Michael Moore was correct about Americans. He's wrong, of course, but that's only because you and your kind are quickly becoming a more and more irrelevant group in American politics.

Conservatives arent the ones screwing up America, or supporting Michael Moore. The only reason Republicans are losing votes is because the Democrats let in millions of illegal immigrants and give them far more rights than other Americans. So guess who they vote for.

Proof that liberalism has evolved into liberal fascism (http://z4.invisionfree.com/Time_for_Nintendo/index.php?showtopic=436&st=0)

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/photos/uncategorized/038551184101_aa240_sclzzzzzzz_.jpg

You do know that Jonah Goldberg is the Michael Moore of the Far Right, right? The man is completely uncredible.

You know, Fass, normally I'd be all well and good with agreeing with you about how wrong U.S. foreign policy is, but do you really think a large number of American citizens deserve to die because of what their government does? Do you realize just how idiotic that is? That's the same reasoning that Bush and his cronies are using!

Do you want me to take a gander at Sweden's history and pick a specific war to blame on you and use as an excuse to kill you? No? I wouldn't think so.

You say that no American's opinion on any subject--even if they are completely against the foreign policies you enjoy despising(as do I)--should be considered, so why should yours? What makes you special, hmm? According to your logic, you yourself should be completely dismissed.

So, I just want you to think about how hypocritical you are acting, Fass. Your more inteligent than that. Unlike Greater Trostia I am not going to insult you simply because I disagree with you, but I am going to ask why you think the way you do.

One other thing I want to point out: a lot more Americans would be anti-war and so on and so forth if they were educated properly. Our educational system at the moment, however, is set up so poorly that a large number tend to be sucked into propaganda of one form or another. Classic examples all around: one of my English teachers, a man we enjoyed referring to as Browner, was a hardcore neocon and enjoyed using seemingly wonderfully created arguments to fool all of his students into believing in his ideology. Because of his charisma and because the system is set up to allow someone like him the ability to use it in the manner that he does, so many students there are fooled into agreeing with him and then keep that way of thinking the rest of their lives. And he's not the only teacher I've seen doing that...I've seen it from a hell of a lot of teachers in our system. It sucks, quite a bit.

Neesika: I too await the day fundementalist extremism and overbearing militerism is finally destroyed in this country and we can act sensibly. There are millions of us who just want the U.S. to be friendly towards everyone and actually act like nice neighbors instead of insulting jackasses who make war on everyone.

*Reads thread...gets increasingly confused...decides against making any argument for medical reasons*

...Mutherfucker...

You do know that Jonah Goldberg is the Michael Moore of the Far Right, right? The man is completely uncredible.

A blind squirrel has to find a nut sometimes.

Conservatives arent the ones screwing up America, or supporting Michael Moore. The only reason Republicans are losing votes is because the Democrats let in millions of illegal immigrants and give them far more rights than other Americans. So guess who they vote for.

Oh we are a cute little conspiracy theorist, aren't we? Republicans are losing votes because Americans are seeing through the lies. Iraq, Katrina, Abramoff, the USA scandal, Afghanistan, ignoring warnings prior to 9/11. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Americans are seeing that the far right is poison, and they are voting against this poison.

How do you feel, knowing that you belong to a party so far right that it is willing to spy on Americans without warrants? Republicans are so far out of the mainstream, it's sickening.

You know, Fass, normally I'd be all well and good with agreeing with you about how wrong U.S. foreign policy is, but do you really think a large number of American citizens deserve to die because of what their government does? Do you realize just how idiotic that is? That's the same reasoning that Bush and his cronies are using! :rolleyes:

Should US lives be valued more than the lives of anyone else?

It boils down to this.

It's 'okay' for the US to kill and kill and kill.

It's a global tragedy when US citizens are murdered.

Hmmm. Just? No. Deserving of comment? Absolutely.

But apparently, making said comment means, "I WISH ALL YOU FUCKERS WOULD DIE".

Not only can some of you not read between the lines, but some of you seem to be missing the lines themselves.

A blind squirrel has to find a nut sometimes.

Not this one. Goldberg is the worst kind of propogandistic trash. Liberals aren't fascists: but the Republicans are doing their level best at getting there.

Oh we are a cute little conspiracy theorist, aren't we? Republicans are losing votes because Americans are seeing through the lies. Iraq, Katrina, Abramoff, the USA scandal, Afghanistan, ignoring warnings prior to 9/11. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Americans are seeing that the far right is poison, and they are voting against this poison.

How do you feel, knowing that you belong to a party so far right that it is willing to spy on Americans without warrants? Republicans are so far out of the mainstream, it's sickening.

Extremism in general is poison, they're voting against one poison but voting for a more lethal and worse one.

Neesika: I too await the day fundementalist extremism and overbearing militerism is finally destroyed in this country and we can act sensibly. There are millions of us who just want the U.S. to be friendly towards everyone and actually act like nice neighbors instead of insulting jackasses who make war on everyone.

I know it, and am extremely sympathetic to those of you living in the US who do not support this, and yet have to live with it being done in your name.

Conservatives arent the ones screwing up America, or supporting Michael Moore. The only reason Republicans are losing votes is because the Democrats let in millions of illegal immigrants and give them far more rights than other Americans. So guess who they vote for.

I suppose the moon landing was a hoax then?

You know, Fass, normally I'd be all well and good with agreeing with you about how wrong U.S. foreign policy is, but do you really think a large number of American citizens deserve to die because of what their government does? Do you realize just how idiotic that is? That's the same reasoning that Bush and his cronies are using!

Do you want me to take a gander at Sweden's history and pick a specific war to blame on you and use as an excuse to kill you? No? I wouldn't think so.

You say that no American's opinion on any subject--even if they are completely against the foreign policies you enjoy despising(as do I)--should be considered, so why should yours? What makes you special, hmm? According to your logic, you yourself should be completely dismissed.

So, I just want you to think about how hypocritical you are acting, Fass. Your more inteligent than that. Unlike Greater Trostia I am not going to insult you simply because I disagree with you, but I am going to ask why you think the way you do.

One other thing I want to point out: a lot more Americans would be anti-war and so on and so forth if they were educated properly. Our educational system at the moment, however, is set up so poorly that a large number tend to be sucked into propaganda of one form or another. Classic examples all around: one of my English teachers, a man we enjoyed referring to as Browner, was a hardcore neocon and enjoyed using seemingly wonderfully created arguments to fool all of his students into believing in his ideology. Because of his charisma and because the system is set up to allow someone like him the ability to use it in the manner that he does, so many students there are fooled into agreeing with him and then keep that way of thinking the rest of their lives. And he's not the only teacher I've seen doing that...I've seen it from a hell of a lot of teachers in our system. It sucks, quite a bit.

Neesika: I too await the day fundementalist extremism and overbearing militerism is finally destroyed in this country and we can act sensibly. There are millions of us who just want the U.S. to be friendly towards everyone and actually act like nice neighbors instead of insulting jackasses who make war on everyone.


#1 You know why our education system is screwed up? Because all the teachers are Liberal.

#2 More Americans would be pro-war if they were properly educated.

Extremism in general is poison, they're voting against one poison but voting for a more lethal and worse one.

Bullcrap. The Democrats are about as moderate as you can get. To claim that they are extremists demonstrates an unmitigated partisan bias and an inability to accurately observe the situation. The far right has been pointing figners, praying that no one pays attention to the fact that they are the actual extremists, but it is increasingly apparent. The reality-based community will out, and the Republicans will spend 20 years in the woods, just like the Dems did, trying to find their way back to relevance.

You know, Fass, normally I'd be all well and good with agreeing with you about how wrong U.S. foreign policy is, but do you really think a large number of American citizens deserve to die because of what their government does? Do you realize just how idiotic that is? That's the same reasoning that Bush and his cronies are using!

Exactly. It's the exact same reasoning.

Now, what I add to it, though, is the fact that the USA is not a peace-loving country. Or at least, not to as great an extent that would actually prevent it from waging war after war after war of aggression. Perhaps the time has come to give up hope on this feeble love of peace it seems to have, and hope for a fear of war to take its place instead? It worked for us - hundreds of years of war finally stopped when the populace couldn't take it any more. We needed the lesson, and since you don't seem to want to learn from the experiences of others, of "old Europe", then perhaps you need to attend the class yourselves. You've been playing hooky from it long enough.

#1 You know why our education system is screwed up? Because all the teachers are Liberal.

#2 More Americans would be pro-war if they were properly educated.

My troll senses are tingling...

:rolleyes:

Should US lives be valued more than the lives of anyone else?

It boils down to this.

It's 'okay' for the US to kill and kill and kill.

It's a global tragedy when US citizens are murdered.

Hmmm. Just? No. Deserving of comment? Absolutely.

But apparently, making said comment means, "I WISH ALL YOU FUCKERS WOULD DIE".

Not only can some of you not read between the lines, but some of you seem to be missing the lines themselves.

Apparently, it's supposed to be because of sub par education. And that's apparently one more reason to coddle them and think them more pitiable than others.

Apparently, it's supposed to be because of sub par education. And that's apparently one more reason to coddle them and think them more pitiable than others.

Oh well, that's so typical of a (fake)gay nazi who wants US children to be murdered.

:rolleyes:

Should US lives be valued more than the lives of anyone else?

It boils down to this.

It's 'okay' for the US to kill and kill and kill.

It's a global tragedy when US citizens are murdered.

Hmmm. Just? No. Deserving of comment? Absolutely.

But apparently, making said comment means, "I WISH ALL YOU FUCKERS WOULD DIE".

Not only can some of you not read between the lines, but some of you seem to be missing the lines themselves.
I never said that, so please don't put words into my mouth, Neesika. Come on. You know me better than that. I was simply saying that no one deserves to die, whether they be American, Iraqi, Sweedish, or what have you, and saying that one group does and one group does not is hypocritical no matter what the reasoning is.

Actually, if anything, I probably misinterpreted Fass once again. Let's see if his response proves me right.

#1 You know why our education system is screwed up? Because all the teachers are Liberal.
Yeah, I guess that neocon teacher must be a liberal in disguise.


#2 More Americans would be pro-war if they were properly educated.
I think you mean anti-war. See, one of the tenets of being properly educated is respecting life.

Exactly. It's the exact same reasoning.

Now, what I add to it, though, is the fact that the USA is not a peace-loving country. Or at least, not to as great an extent that would actually prevent it from waging war after war after war of aggression. Perhaps the time has come to give up hope on this feeble love of peace it seems to have, and hope for a fear of war to take its place instead? It worked for us - hundreds of years of war finally stopped when the populace couldn't take it any more. We needed the lesson, and since you don't seem to want to learn from the experiences of others, of "old Europe", then perhaps you need to attend the class yourselves.
I knew it. I knew I misinterpreted him.

Okay, now I can see where you're coming from. To be honest, Fass, I hope it doesn't come to that. I honestly hope it doesn't, because I feel that no one deserves to suffer, regardless of who they are or what country they are a part of. But it may come down to that nonetheless...if it does, I just hope it's JUST ENOUGH to do what we want it to do, and nothing more.

Wow, what a load of shit. :eek:

I never said that, so please don't put words into my mouth, Neesika. Come on. You know me better than that. I wouldn't dream of putting anything into your mouth. Not without permission. Those words were mine, thanks, summarising what I see the misunderstanding as being.

I knew it. I knew I misinterpreted him. Hallelujah. As much as I enjoy the way people react to his posts, it does disconcert me that so few people seem to actually READ his posts, and understand them.

Luckily, he is wonderfully abrasive, and people will continue to have their knee-jerk reactions, so I'll remain entertained.

Wow, what a load of shit. :eek:

Yeah, that's the vibe I'm getting too...

Wow, what a load of shit. :eek:

Short, sweet, and so true.

We needed the lesson, and since you don't seem to want to learn from the experiences of others, of "old Europe", then perhaps you need to attend the class yourselves. You've been playing hooky from it long enough.Then again, England was bombed to hell and still manages to enjoy a good war here and there...

In all reality the far left is poison. They're also hippocrites. Did you know that in 1998 in an address to the nation Bill Clinton said " I have no doubt that Saddam Hussien is in possesion of Weapons of Mass Destruction." If by spying on Americans you mean the patriot act, then you obviously dont like America either because that has saved countless lives. And how did the right lie about Katrina? It was a hurricane, thats all. And how about your little heros that the right knows as America Haters like Michael Moore, and the ACLU. The far- left is really the poison in this country.

Yes. You heard it for yourselves here today. The liberals and the Ammoral Left are, in fact, hippos. :rolleyes:

Oh we are a cute little conspiracy theorist, aren't we? Republicans are losing votes because Americans are seeing through the lies. Iraq, Katrina, Abramoff, the USA scandal, Afghanistan, ignoring warnings prior to 9/11. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Americans are seeing that the far right is poison, and they are voting against this poison.

How do you feel, knowing that you belong to a party so far right that it is willing to spy on Americans without warrants? Republicans are so far out of the mainstream, it's sickening.

In all reality the far left is poison. They're also hippocrites. Did you know that in 1998 in an address to the nation Bill Clinton said " I have no doubt that Saddam Hussien is in possesion of Weapons of Mass Destruction." If by spying on Americans you mean the patriot act, then you obviously dont like America either because that has saved countless lives. And how did the right lie about Katrina? It was a hurricane, thats all. And how about your little heros that the right knows as America Haters like Michael Moore, and the ACLU. The far- left is really the poison in this country.

I never said that, so please don't put words into my mouth, Neesika. Come on. You know me better than that. I was simply saying that no one deserves to die, whether they be American, Iraqi, Sweedish, or what have you, and saying that one group does and one group does not is hypocritical no matter what the reasoning is.

Actually, if anything, I probably misinterpreted Fass once again. Let's see if his response proves me right.


Yeah, I guess that neocon teacher must be a liberal in disguise.

I think you mean anti-war. See, one of the tenets of being properly educated is respecting life.


I knew it. I knew I misinterpreted him.

Okay, now I can see where you're coming from. To be honest, Fass, I hope it doesn't come to that. I honestly hope it doesn't, because I feel that no one deserves to suffer, regardless of who they are or what country they are a part of. But it may come down to that nonetheless...if it does, I just hope it's JUST ENOUGH to do what we want it to do, and nothing more.

No, Americans would be pro-war because smart people dont just stand around while terrorist kill thousands of people. Yeah, and I guess Ward Churchill is conservative.

I wouldn't dream of putting anything into your mouth. Not without permission. Those words were mine, thanks, summarising what I see the misunderstanding as being.

Point made. I hate it when so many people who respect one another start tossing off arguments all based on misinterpreting each other then keep misinterpreting each other on and on and on...

Hallelujah. As much as I enjoy the way people react to his posts, it does disconcert me that so few people seem to actually READ his posts, and understand them.
I sometimes have a problem with reading comprehension. It's rare, but it happens, usually when the text I read is full of abrasive, irritating elitism, which is something I really tend not to like.

Luckily, he is wonderfully abrasive, and people will continue to have their knee-jerk reactions, so I'll remain entertained.

And I'm entertained too, most of the time...but there are times when I think he needs to tone it down, because it causes such misinterpretations.

Unless that's part of his fun, in which case, Fass, carry on. :D

the patriot act (...) has saved countless lives.

Prove it now or lose the argument, kid.

Then again, England was bombed to hell and still manages to enjoy a good war here and there...

The British are, like the French, dense in a sense. I blame it on the fact that their empires didn't come crashing down violently enough, but sort of just sputtered, and neither actually lost the war. Thing is, though, they're not comparable today to what they used to be, no? And look at the Germans - who'd've believed they'd become almost pacifist?

I hate America. Much in the same way I hate all countries. Because I'm extremely against countries. But that's just me.

Prove it now or lose the argument, kid.

While listening to phone calls, the government overheard numerous terrorist plots.

Nah, I'll just point out your hypocrisy and mock you for having different beliefs.

I know it's abit late but, fixed for accuracy.

In all reality the far left is poison. They're also hippocrites. Did you know that in 1998 in an address to the nation Bill Clinton said " I have no doubt that Saddam Hussien is in possesion of Weapons of Mass Destruction." If by spying on Americans you mean the patriot act, then you obviously dont like America either because that has saved countless lives. And how did the right lie about Katrina? It was a hurricane, thats all. And how about your little heros that the right knows as America Haters like Michael Moore, and the ACLU. The far- left is really the poison in this country.

What far left? There is no American far left. The American far left was destroyed in the 50's. There is only the American moderate-left. I don't know, or for that matter care, what the Clenis said.

And by spying on Americans I mean warrantless wiretaps, which have saved no lives (just like the Pratriot Act). The true America hating comes from you and your ilk, who are willing to turn this nation into Iran out of your fear and hate.

The right didn't lie about Katrina, they just fucked it up as badly as was possible. Heckuvajob, Brownie!

Not this one. Goldberg is the worst kind of propogandistic trash. Liberals aren't fascists: but the Republicans are doing their level best at getting there.

If they're not fascist then how come they torture kids for propaganda (http://www.floppingaces.net/culture/)

How come they have a pernicious hatred for non-liberals and seem to want them all either converted or destroyed. How come many who are in government try using biological knowledge and eugenics to try to wipe out their political enemies? How come they seem to want all Christians and conservatives sent to the gulags (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=483572) and tortured and non-liberals converted or snubbed? How come they use every tiny excuse they can to disgrace their political enemies, like this for example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523134) How come their supporters get seem to be 1st class citezens and others are second class?

My source for the eugenics part is the NSG thread concerning political views being somewhat genetic.

While listening to phone calls, the government overheard numerous terrorist plots.

Can you find any news articles about these foiled terrorist plots? Because I only recall one foiled terror plot in America recently.

While listening to phone calls, the government overheard numerous terrorist plots.

You lost, kid, because you failed to prove anything.

While listening to phone calls, the government overheard numerous terrorist plots.

They want sources.

Please...feed them the sources....the consequences are too terrible to think about! *jumps out of the way of source-hungry generalite's jaws*

I knew it. I knew I misinterpreted him.

Not to worry; I tend to do this from time to time, use the arguments of the other side to make my own point. Just look at the threads about the Phelpses and the Bible - I use the Phelps' claims that the Bible and Christianity want fags, and a bunch of others, dead and that the Christian deity is not a deity of love, to make the point not that fags need to die, but that Christianity and all religion need to be abandoned.

I've noticed that people from the USA aren't used to that sort of argumentation - here it is quite common for debaters to expose the hideousness of a stance by adopting the stance and propagating for it, and then asking: is this what you want? Is this what it will take?

Okay, now I can see where you're coming from. To be honest, Fass, I hope it doesn't come to that. I honestly hope it doesn't, because I feel that no one deserves to suffer, regardless of who they are or what country they are a part of. But it may come down to that nonetheless...if it does, I just hope it's JUST ENOUGH to do what we want it to do, and nothing more.

I'm a cynic, and am actually almost convincing myself that it makes sense. ;)

If they're not fascist then how come they torture kids for propaganda (http://www.floppingaces.net/culture/)

How come they have a pernicious hatred for non-liberals and seem to want them all either converted or destroyed. How come many who are in government try using biological knowledge and eugenics to try to wipe out their political enemies? How come they seem to want all Christians and conservatives sent to the gulags (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=483572) and tortured and non-liberals converted or snubbed? How come they use every tiny excuse they can to disgrace their political enemies, like this for example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523134) How come their supporters get seem to be 1st class citezens and others are second class?

My source for the eugenics part is the NSG thread concerning political views being somewhat genetic.

Um. How about because the first is irrelevant to anything. The second is from Freepers, and therefore about as reliable as asking Stalin if Communism worked, and the third is the case of preparing for the threat that is there, rather than for the threat that isn't there? Dominionists are a threat to American citizens. Militant dominionists border on terrorist status. Let's not ignore that.

In any sense, none of these are actions by "liberals" at all. You are falsely attributing to the moderate-left what belongs to individual citizens. The same is not true of the behavior of the far right.

While listening to phone calls, the government overheard numerous terrorist plots.

Source, please.

I've noticed that people from the USA aren't used to that sort of argumentation - here it is quite common for debaters to expose the hideousness of a stance by adopting the stance and propagating for it, and then asking: is this what you want? Is this what it will take? You realise of course that even admitting this is not going to stop people from claiming you're just saying this to backtrack, and that really, you DO support exactly the point you've been mocking.

*le sigh*

Well, then again, look how long it took for you and I to get along.

And as I said...there is serious entertainment value in this.

What far left? There is no American far left. The American far left was destroyed in the 50's. There is only the American moderate-left. I don't know, or for that matter care, what the Clenis said.

And by spying on Americans I mean warrantless wiretaps, which have saved no lives (just like the Pratriot Act). The true America hating comes from you and your ilk, who are willing to turn this nation into Iran out of your fear and hate.

The right didn't lie about Katrina, they just fucked it up as badly as was possible. Heckuvajob, Brownie!

No far-left? What does that make Bill Mayer, Al Franken, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore, and Hillary Clinton? The Patriot Act has saved lives by listening in on terrorist plots. And they true America hating comes from your constant hatred for this country, and the fact that you would sooner protect terrorists than American citizens. You want to turn America into an Anarchy, and eradicate all Christianity, which by the way is what the country was founded on.

In all reality the far left is poison. They're also hippocrites. Did you know that in 1998 in an address to the nation Bill Clinton said " I have no doubt that Saddam Hussien is in possesion of Weapons of Mass Destruction." If by spying on Americans you mean the patriot act, then you obviously dont like America either because that has saved countless lives. And how did the right lie about Katrina? It was a hurricane, thats all. And how about your little heros that the right knows as America Haters like Michael Moore, and the ACLU. The far- left is really the poison in this country.

Did you know that your very dear Ronald Reagan actually gave weapons and money to both Iran and Iraq? Say, aren't we at war with one of those countries?

"President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States 'could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran', and that the United States 'would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.'"

Have you ever seen this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg)picture before? Pretty crazy ain't it?

Man, it's almost as if Ronald Reagan actually lined us up for future wars.

Then again, maybe I'm just making stuff up.

No far-left? What does that make Bill Mayer, Al Franken, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore, and Hillary Clinton?

Hahahaha, take those people out of the US, and they start looking pretty damn centrist.

Which says a lot about what you think 'liberal' means.

If they're not fascist then how come they torture kids for propaganda (http://www.floppingaces.net/culture/)
Unless Jill Greenberg is the only liberal in the country then you're wrong.

How come they have a pernicious hatred for non-liberals and seem to want them all either converted or destroyed.
They don't. Some extremists might, but nobody cares what they think.
How come many who are in government try using biological knowledge and eugenics to try to wipe out their political enemies? How come they seem to want all Christians and conservatives sent to the gulags (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=483572) and tortured and non-liberals converted or snubbed?
They don't. A study suggesting a possible link between genetics and political beliefs does not add up to a liberal conspiracy to destroy conservatism. As was pointed out to you in that thread.
How come they use every tiny excuse they can to disgrace their political enemies, like this for example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523134)
You mean like every politician in the history of politics?
How come their supporters get seem to be 1st class citezens and others are second class?
Are you suggesting liberalism is bad because 1st class people support it?


What?

You realise of course that even admitting this is not going to stop people from claiming you're just saying this to backtrack, and that really, you DO support exactly the point you've been mocking.

*le sigh*

You do realise that I care as little about those people as I always have? Dumbing down my arguments so that they can be more easily digested by them is not in my interest, since I don't really care for the dumb.

Well, then again, look how long it took for you and I to get along.

Well, in your case I knew there was something in between those ears that would lead to you eventually getting it. I was right, as is my habit.

And as I said...there is serious entertainment value in this.

I should charge you for this milkshake.

While listening to phone calls, the government overheard numerous terrorist plots.

While listening to phone calls, the government overheard numerous excellent recipes for chicken flambé.

Not to worry; I tend to do this from time to time, use the arguments of the other side to make my own point. Just look at the threads about the Phelpses and the Bible - I use the Phelps' claims that the Bible and Christianity want fags, and a bunch of others, dead and that the Christian deity is not a deity of love, to make the point not that fags need to die, but that Christianity and all religion need to be abandoned.

Aye. It's a good strategy, really.

I've noticed that people from the USA aren't used to that sort of argumentation - here it is quite common for debaters to expose the hideousness of a stance by adopting the stance and propagating for it, and then asking: is this what you want? Is this what it will take?

It definitely needs to be used more. Maybe more of us will pay attention.


I'm a cynic, and am actually almost convincing myself that it makes sense. ;)

Indeed.


Well, then again, look how long it took for you and I to get along.

And as I said...there is serious entertainment value in this.

...you mean, you guys did not always get along? And here I thought you were busom buddies from day one. :confused:

Hey, it's better than Libertarians! They like to pleasure themselves with dollar bills, whilst eating cheques (better than eating Czechs, I suppose), and watching the suffering of their sla- er... workers. And that's not even talking about the rooms full of Ayn Rand books. *shudders* :p

[Minor Rant]
Ahem. Just as a quick note, Ayn Rand disavowed libertarianism as the trash that it is, a threat to capitalism and freedom greater than the plague that is liberal and conservative politics. This line of thought about libertarianism is maintained by the estate of Mrs. Rand and the Ayn Rand Institute who represent the continuation of the traditional objectivist philosophy.
[/Minor Rant]

With that out of the way, this isn't a thread to debate the moral superiority of objectivist philosophy. So on to the article that started this, and making myself immensely unpopular. To be blunt, I have every intention of criticizing both conservatives and liberals here, so err, just get in line to throw stones?

OK, so her basic premise is essentially true, Liberals are out to destroy America. But that's essentially where she leaves the path of speaking truth. Well, actually, she probably wouldn't know what truth was if it were to dance naked in front of her carrying pictures of Christ and Satan enjoying cocktails together, but that's beside the point. She's perfectly right, liberals don't "support the troops", but then again neither do the conservatives. After all, this is politics, people don't matter as such, they're tools. "The troops" just happen to be a convenient tool at the moment to wave around under a thin veneer of false patriotism.

Shame no one realizes that liberals and conservatives really want the same thing. An oppressive overbearing nanny state that enforces a false standard of "morality" on the world at the expense of personal freedom. Conservatives lead towards a theocratic absolutism like that of the Muslim dictatorships, versus the Liberal momentum for the failed religion of the state of the Soviet Union. Liberals favor programs that force the populace to be more and more dependent upon the state and then have the gall to be appalled when the government tells them "you'll do it because mommy says so and mommy is looking out for your best interest." Conservatives seek to make the state the enforcer of "morality" and then have the gall to be shocked when people expect them to enforce their "moral" supremacy across the board. The really hilarious aspect is that they each accurately accuse the other of these policy manipulations, but then proceed to use the same manipulation to further their own perverted cause.

Amusingly though, I'm with some people here. I eagerly await the day when conservatism and religious mysticism comes crashing down before the moral supremacy of logic and reason, I just simply hope that liberalism and collectivist mysticism go with it.

Now that I've successfully kept myself from having any allies in this thread, time to move on. :headbang:

The Patriot Act has saved lives by listening in on terrorist plots.
Have you a source for this?
And they true America hating comes from your constant hatred for this country, and the fact that you would sooner protect terrorists than American citizens. You want to turn America into an Anarchy, and eradicate all Christianity, which by the way is what the country was founded on.

Are we meant to believe that you're a mind reader or something? Because KSP has never appeared to think or believe anything along these lines.

No far-left? What does that make Bill Mayer, Al Franken, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore, and Hillary Clinton? The Patriot Act has saved lives by listening in on terrorist plots. And they true America hating comes from your constant hatred for this country, and the fact that you would sooner protect terrorists than American citizens. You want to turn America into an Anarchy, and eradicate all Christianity, which by the way is what the country was founded on.

It makes them moderates. Moore and Franken are a little left of center, but neither is anything but a Moderate.

Either source your erronious claims about the Pratriot Act, or cease making them. Either way, you are doing battle with the true American way by fighting against our liberties. Why do we fight, if not for our freedom?

I have no desire to turn America in an anarchic state, and the rest of my family is Christian, and I have no desire to make them cease being that way. America was founded by Deists and Universalists, not by Christians, and it was founded on the concept of a seperate church and state. I, for one, am glad for this, since it keeps the state out of my family's church. Do you want the state in your church?

...you mean, you guys did not always get along? And here I thought you were busom buddies from day one. :confused:

Oh Christ no! We fought like cats and dogs...I'm pretty sure I had him on ignore for a while too.

I was used to the low level of discourse here, and he took me by surprise.

Ah, so it's okay to wish horrible things upon people you judge deserve it?

Sure. Racists for being racists, for example. Their own beliefs and actions warrant my disdain.

Wow. How totally unlike what you are accusing Fass of.

It is indeed different.

He wants "horrible things" for someone for someone ELSE's beliefs and actions.


Oh wait. No it's not.

You just think your criteria is better.


My criteria ARE better. They are logical. They make sense. Collective punishment doesn't.


I don't give a flying fuck as to the nationality of those doing the killing...they disgust me regardless. I DO care about the ones dying. And right now, the bulk of those people dying are NOT US citizens. So forgive me for not crying a river for the US.

What a bunch of nonsense. No one is asking for a "river" of tears for the US.

Repeated wrongs should not go unpunished for 50 years.

And no one should be punished for that which they did not do.

If children of other countries can be bombed by the USA, I don't see why USA children should be special and merit the sparing of the USA in a war.

If you believe it's OK to kill children, then you should support the deaths of foreign and American children alike. If you don't believe it's OK, you shouldn't support either deaths. So which is it?

As I said, there is a difference between "not giving a fuck if they do" and "supporting it".

For example, there were those who actively supported putting the Jews into concentration camps, and there were those who simply smirked, shrugged and pretended they didn't know what was going on.

Such a fine distinction.

Would I support an attack on the USA? No. Would I be sympathetic to the victims of that attack? Not, much, no, since USA citizens aren't more deserving of that sympathy than those of Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam. The latter are, of course, much more numerous, so exqueeze me if I have to prioritise whom to pity and don't choose the country that continues to cause suffering to others time and time and time again.

Right. You have such limited pity in you, that you must dole it out according to political beliefs. And since when does pitying an innocent life lost amount to pitying the whole "country." Oh that's right, the hive minded collective consciousness you think people share.

When that bully has the deaths of almost uncountable children on his conscience and has the gall to then proclaim that he is a force of "good" in the world, and that because of the innocence of his own children he should be spared from the consequences of his actions, well, he merits a punch in the face.

Oh, but I thought he merits his own children be killed? That is after all what you're talking about. Kill the children, for their parent is a bully. It's alright, since they're all Americans anyway. Right? Same old stupid shit that FreedomAndGlory spouts - just a different politic. How very impressive.

Not to worry; I tend to do this from time to time, use the arguments of the other side to make my own point. Just look at the threads about the Phelpses and the Bible - I use the Phelps' claims that the Bible and Christianity want fags, and a bunch of others, dead and that the Christian deity is not a deity of love, to make the point not that fags need to die, but that Christianity and all religion need to be abandoned.

I've noticed that people from the USA aren't used to that sort of argumentation - here it is quite common for debaters to expose the hideousness of a stance by adopting the stance and propagating for it, and then asking: is this what you want? Is this what it will take?

I'm a cynic, and am actually almost convincing myself that it makes sense. ;)

And my take on how you will probably read his admission, though I hope I'm wrong. Edit: Nope. Damn.

You realise of course that even admitting this is not going to stop people from claiming you're just saying this to backtrack, and that really, you DO support exactly the point you've been mocking.

*le sigh*

Well, then again, look how long it took for you and I to get along.

And as I said...there is serious entertainment value in this.

Ah well. You have your own brand of assholery that I enjoy, so it doesn't really matter to me if the posters I like get along.

Oh Christ no! We fought like cats and dogs...I'm pretty sure I had him on ignore for a while too.

I was used to the low level of discourse here, and he took me by surprise.
Amazing...what wonders we humans create...

Not to worry; I tend to do this from time to time, use the arguments of the other side to make my own point.

Yeah. Even when you're not using the arguments the other side actually makes, so it winds up being completely poinltess and stupid and the only thing you actually do is perpetuate stupid-ass arguments for the sake of getting attention like any other troll. Clever. Brilliant. Avant-garde. You should get yourself a medal and then shut the fuck up.

...you mean, you guys did not always get along? And here I thought you were busom buddies from day one. :confused:

Oh, no, no, no honey. Sinuhue as she was called at the time spent months hating my guts, and then one day the jeton dropped for her and she got that I was on her side. She's had the hots for me ever since.

Oh, no, no, no honey. Sinuhue as she was called at the time spent months hating my guts, and then one day the jeton dropped for her and she got that I was on her side. She's had the hots for me ever since.

Alas, it's an amor prohibido...

Did you know that your very dear Ronald Reagan actually gave weapons and money to both Iran and Iraq? Say, aren't we at war with one of those countries?

"President Ronald Reagan decided that the United States 'could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran', and that the United States 'would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran.'"

Have you ever seen this (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg)picture before? Pretty crazy ain't it?

Man, it's almost as if Ronald Reagan actually lined us up for future wars.

Then again, maybe I'm just making stuff up.

Ronald Reagan gave the Iraqis and Iranians weaponsand money because he knew they were trouble. He them the money and weapons so they would kill each other off. And if he hadnt done that we would have lost alot more troops in Iraq. But heres something you may not know, Bill Clinton gave a nuclear reactor, and billions of dollars to North Korea. Now call me crazy, but I do belive Nukes kill more people than guns.

Yeah. Even when you're not using the arguments the other side actually makes, so it winds up being completely poinltess and stupid and the only thing you actually do is perpetuate stupid-ass arguments for the sake of getting attention like any other troll. Clever. Brilliant. Avant-garde. You should get yourself a medal and then shut the fuck up.

There, there, sweety. You've worked yourself up to such a fizzle that you seem to actually believe I'd give a patootie about what you just wrote. Come now, you should know better than that, or at least have learnt to know better than that like you just learnt a spot of English.

Yeah. Even when you're not using the arguments the other side actually makes, so it winds up being completely poinltess and stupid and the only thing you actually do is perpetuate stupid-ass arguments for the sake of getting attention like any other troll. Clever. Brilliant. Avant-garde. You should get yourself a medal and then shut the fuck up.

Take your own advice and quit being so obstinate. Try examining everything he says before overreacting.

Oh, no, no, no honey. Sinuhue as she was called at the time spent months hating my guts, and then one day the jeton dropped for her and she got that I was on her side. She's had the hots for me ever since.

Alas, it's an amor prohibido...

That sounds like a sitcom in the making...

*starts writing*

With the line between Liberal and Conservative being more firmly drawn , it would seem (looking at this as an outsider) that it would be a blessing to be among the dead. At least I wouldn't have to choose a side. I don't want to be forced to choose one over the other, both groups have very good policies. Constricting your views like this and claiming who's right and who's wrong is stupid. Both Liberals and Conservatives would mind as well be referred to the metaphorical representations of Oceana and Eastasia except we're not in an "infinite war" trying to kill each other...but hey we're only human.

Alas, it's an amor prohibido...

.. and hence, el mejor amor!

Ronald Reagan gave the Iraqis and Iranians weaponsand money because he knew they were trouble. He them the money and weapons so they would kill each other off. And if he hadnt done that we would have lost alot more troops in Iraq. But heres something you may not know, Bill Clinton gave a nuclear reactor, and billions of dollars to North Korea. Now call me crazy, but I do belive Nukes kill more people than guns.

Even if Clinton did do such a thing, a nuclear reactor is no more a weapon than a rock of the same size.

Even if Clinton did do such a thing, a nuclear reactor is no more a weapon than a rock of the same size.

Well... Unless Kim Jong Il wanted to kill more of his people off. Then letting it meltdown would be pretty damn deadly. Still, given that he would get caught in the fallout, I doubt he'd be too willing to try that.

Christianity, which by the way is what the country was founded on.

Prove it or lose it.

It makes them moderates. Moore and Franken are a little left of center, but neither is anything but a Moderate.

Either source your erronious claims about the Pratriot Act, or cease making them. Either way, you are doing battle with the true American way by fighting against our liberties. Why do we fight, if not for our freedom?

I have no desire to turn America in an anarchic state, and the rest of my family is Christian, and I have no desire to make them cease being that way. America was founded by Deists and Universalists, not by Christians, and it was founded on the concept of a seperate church and state. I, for one, am glad for this, since it keeps the state out of my family's church. Do you want the state in your church?

First off, George Wasington was Christian, Thomas Jefferson was Christian, John Hancock was Christian. All of our founding fathers were Christian, and they founded the country on Christianity. I dont want the State in my Church, but I do want the Church in my State. Did you know that inside the Supreme Court building is an engraving of the Ten Commandments? You know why? Because thats what our laws were founded on. There are no particular sources of the Patriot Act saving lives that I know of, but the President and our defence organizations have stated that it has. Now, how can you prove it hasn't saved lives? Prove to me that it hasn't, and I'll stop talking about it.

Even if Clinton did do such a thing, a nuclear reactor is no more a weapon than a rock of the same size.

Its not the Nuclear reactor as much as it is the billions of dollars. With that money Kim Jong Il started his WMD program thanks to the one and only Bill Clinton.

Nah, I'm pretty sure you made an allusion to your superstitious and faith-based moral belief that it's OK to kill someone, as long as that person "deserves" it.


He pulls this kind of shit all the time, apparently his arbitrary beliefs in "commupence" when we all know this equates to nothing above the logic of "karma" are reasons that justify things like the 9/11 attacks. It's total bullshit.

First off, George Wasington was Christian, Thomas Jefferson was Christian, John Hancock was Christian. All of our founding fathers were Christian, and they founded the country on Christianity. I dont want the State in my Church, but I do want the Church in my State. Did you know that inside the Supreme Court building is an engraving of the Ten Commandments? You know why? Because thats what our laws were founded on. There are no particular sources of the Patriot Act saving lives that I know of, but the President and our defence organizations have stated that it has. Now, how can you prove it hasn't saved lives? Prove to me that it hasn't, and I'll stop talking about it.

George Washington - Went to church to make his wife happy.
Thomas Jefferson - An atheist/agnostic/pagan/whateverhewantedtobethatweek
John Hancock - Not a founding father. He signed the Declaration of Independance, but not the Constitution.

You are wrong on all counts regarding religion. And I don't want your Church in my state, or your Church in my family's Church. It's a matter of mutual respect.

Burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim. You and the Pretzlenit are making the affirmative claim. Either back it up, or shut it up.

First off, George Wasington was Christian, Thomas Jefferson was Christian, John Hancock was Christian. All of our founding fathers were Christian, and they founded the country on Christianity. I dont want the State in my Church, but I do want the Church in my State. Did you know that inside the Supreme Court building is an engraving of the Ten Commandments? You know why? Because thats what our laws were founded on. There are no particular sources of the Patriot Act saving lives that I know of, but the President and our defence organizations have stated that it has. Now, how can you prove it hasn't saved lives? Prove to me that it hasn't, and I'll stop talking about it.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHA at the bold part. Bwahahahaha, I say.

Wow I was a little late.

As is your habit.

Wow I was a little late.

I do want the Church in my State.

And I want to wake up tomorrow by Lara Croft's and Morrigan's side. Neither of our wishes is happening, but my wish would be far less harmful than yours.

First off, George Wasington was Christian, Thomas Jefferson was Christian, John Hancock was Christian. All of our founding fathers were Christian, and they founded the country on Christianity. I dont want the State in my Church, but I do want the Church in my State. Did you know that inside the Supreme Court building is an engraving of the Ten Commandments? You know why? Because thats what our laws were founded on. There are no particular sources of the Patriot Act saving lives that I know of, but the President and our defence organizations have stated that it has. Now, how can you prove it hasn't saved lives? Prove to me that it hasn't, and I'll stop talking about it.

Actually most of them were Unitarian. PHAIL!

George Washington - Went to church to make his wife happy.
Thomas Jefferson - An atheist/agnostic/pagan/whateverhewantedtobethatweek
John Hancock - Not a founding father. He signed the Declaration of Independance, but not the Constitution.

You are wrong on all counts regarding religion. And I don't want your Church in my state, or your Church in my family's Church. It's a matter of mutual respect.

Burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim. You and the Pretzlenit are making the affirmative claim. Either back it up, or shut it up.

No, George Washington was a strong Christian and belived in God not because his wife wanted him to, he truly belived in God. Thomas Jefferson was also a Christian, not an an atheist, agnostic, or a pagan, he was also a Christian. John Hancock was the president of the first and second Conteniental Congress meetings, making him a founding father. Think about it One Nation UNDER GOD. We were based on Christianity, and it should stay that way.

First off, George Wasington was Christian, Thomas Jefferson was Christian, John Hancock was Christian. All of our founding fathers were Christian, and they founded the country on Christianity. I dont want the State in my Church, but I do want the Church in my State.
What's that treaty that explicitly states that America is a secular country? Did you know that inside the Supreme Court building is an engraving of the Ten Commandments? You know why? Because thats what our laws were founded on.
Wrong. Your nation is and always was secular. Get over it.
There are no particular sources of the Patriot Act saving lives that I know of,
Knoow why? Because the patriot act hasn't saved any lives.
but the President and our defence organizations have stated that it has.
And politicians are above lying, aren't they?
Now, how can you prove it hasn't saved lives? Prove to me that it hasn't, and I'll stop talking about it.
Go look up the term "burden of proof"
Its not the Nuclear reactor as much as it is the billions of dollars. With that money Kim Jong Il started his WMD program thanks to the one and only Bill Clinton.

Did Clinton actually do this?

Didn't they also apparently say that they didn't want the church in their state?

*Goes off to find Richard Dawkins book...*

EDIT: Thankyou Ifreann for beating me to it and answering the question before it was asked :)

No, George Washington was a strong Christian and belived in God not because his wife wanted him to, he truly belived in God. Thomas Jefferson was also a Christian, not an an atheist, agnostic, or a pagan, he was also a Christian. John Hancock was the president of the first and second Conteniental Congress meetings, making him a founding father. Think about it One Nation UNDER GOD. We were based on Christianity, and it should stay that way.

The pledge of allegiance?

One Nation UNDER GOD. We were based on Christianity, and it should stay that way.

No, it isn't, no, you weren't, no it shouldn't.

Next question.

Did Clinton actually do this?

Yeah but it is a bit more complicated than that.

And I want to wake up tomorrow by Lara Croft's and Morrigan's side. Neither of our wishes is happening, but my wish would be far less harmful than yours.
Well those breasts might put an eye out.
No, George Washington was a strong Christian and belived in God not because his wife wanted him to, he truly belived in God. Thomas Jefferson was also a Christian, not an an atheist, agnostic, or a pagan, he was also a Christian. John Hancock was the president of the first and second Conteniental Congress meetings, making him a founding father.
Did you know any of these men personally?
Think about it
Yes, you should try that
One Nation UNDER GOD.
Only made the motto(in god we trust, it was E Pluribus Unum) and added to the pledge to oppose the "godless communists"
We were based on Christianity, and it should stay that way.

Wrong on both counts. Your state is secular.

Can both sides though be 100% right on a single issue? I mean I know both Liberals and Conservatives are groups that represent a set amount of beliefs but humans and hierarchy structures run both of them.

... first and second Conteniental...

Forgive me for being an ignorant Brit, but what the hell does "Conteniental" mean?

Oh, and I'll think you'll find that it really does say that America was founded secular. I suggest you look up your own constitution.

Yeah but it is a bit more complicated than that.

Remind me to never make friends with an American president. It always seems to go badly later on.

What's that treaty that explicitly states that America is a secular country?
Wrong. Your nation is and always was secular. Get over it.

Knoow why? Because the patriot act hasn't saved any lives.

And politicians are above lying, aren't they?

Go look up the term "burden of proof"


Did Clinton actually do this?

I dont know what history book your reading, but our founding fathers were christian, and based the nation on christianity. This may not be because of the patriot act, but because a computer repairman looked at peoples files, he found a file on someones computer on day about a plot to destroy Fort Dix. If he hadnt looked through that mans files, we would have alot of dead soldiers right now. And yes, Clinton did actually give the North Koreans billions of dollars, and a nuclear reactor.

No, George Washington was a strong Christian and belived in God not because his wife wanted him to, he truly belived in God. Thomas Jefferson was also a Christian, not an an atheist, agnostic, or a pagan, he was also a Christian. John Hancock was the president of the first and second Conteniental Congress meetings, making him a founding father. Think about it One Nation UNDER GOD. We were based on Christianity, and it should stay that way.


You are incorrect. You are rewriting history. There is a lot of corroborating evidence for GW's religious apathy. TJ was a strong atheist, and his writings confim this, for a time. He was also other religions, but never for long. Hancock wasn't involved in writing the Constitution, so his opinions are void.

One Nation Under God was only added later by fundamentalist groups attempting to undermine secular government in the United States. We are based on freedom for everyone, not just some, and we should remain that way.

Christianity, which by the way is what the country was founded on.

With Keikoku on that one dear. You're gonna need to prove that. However, I'll save you some trouble and just point out the evidence you'll need to overcome.

The dread sovereign Henry VIII established Anglicanism and the Church of England as the state religion of the British empire, which directly resulted in several coercive acts, including in 1774 the British Parliament legislated that the American Colonies would have Catholocism and Anglicanism as state established and supported religions. The Americans weren't too happy with this and the First Continental Congress sent unto Parliament a resolution stating something to the effect the the congress was

"[Astonished] that a British Parliament should ever consent to establish ... a religion that has deluged [England] in blood and dispersed bigotry, persecution, murder, and rebellion through every part of the world."


The national founders, had a profound distaste for a national religion. Interestingly enough they expressely prohibited religious tests to hold office in the United States, IE those "non-Christian heathens" (meant as sarcastic by the way... I'd be a non-Christian heathen) can't be barred from holding any office because they're non-Christian heathens. Furthermore, within the first amendment there is an express prohibition on a state established or supported church, and idea which dates all the way back to the Magna Carta which has as its first clause

I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

which garauntees that the church is to be free of interference from government. Keeping in mind that the US is a common law country, this is still part of judicial presedence to this day in the legal system.

In short terms, please do a little research and learn what you're talking about before you say something.

Forgive me for being an ignorant Brit, but what the hell does "Conteniental" mean?

Oh, and I'll think you'll find that it really does say that America was founded secular. I suggest you look up your own constitution.

It was called the Contenintal Congress, because at the time they were speaking for what they belived to be the entire Contenient.

and it should stay that way.

why?

Forgive me for being an ignorant Brit, but what the hell does "Conteniental" mean?



You know like,
A kiss on the hand may be quite conteniental
But diamonds are a girl's best friend

What's that treaty that explicitly states that America is a secular country?

Treaty of Tripoli? But! But! We have to be Christianz!!! After alls, God is on our side against the Tearareizts!!!

Right. Now to end this "America is Christian" bull.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

From the Treaty Of Tripoli. Case Effing closed.

He pulls this kind of shit all the time, apparently his arbitrary beliefs in "commupence" when we all know this equates to nothing above the logic of "karma" are reasons that justify things like the 9/11 attacks. It's total bullshit.

Ah well, it's no worse than your blatant inability to recognise satire.

But hey, why let reading comprehension get in the way of righteous indignation?

Remind me to never make friends with an American president. It always seems to go badly later on.

You can still be friends with some of them... just don't lose eye contact if you're in their presence.

I dont know what history book your reading, but our founding fathers were christian, and based the nation on christianity.
Your nation is secular. I'm sure you wish it were different, but life is like that at times.

You know like,
A kiss on the hand may be quite conteniental
But diamonds are a girl's best friend

Ah, I see...:p

You can still be friends with some of them... just don't lose eye contact if you're in their presence.

It's their successors you have to worry about. Make friends with Bush and two or three presidents later you'll be getting invaded.

That article made me laugh very hard. Thanks! :D

It was called the Contenintal Congress, because at the time they were speaking for what they belived to be the entire Contenient.

Are seriously from the south or something?

Allow me to aid you. It is spelled Continental. Like:

"Jimmy, hurry the fuck up, we've got to make it to the hotel lobby before the Continental Breakfast closes."

It's their successors you have to worry about. Make friends with Bush and two or three presidents later you'll be getting invaded.

I see what you mean...


*adjusts address book accordingly*

Are seriously from the south or something?

Allow me to aid you. It is spelled Continental. Like:

"Jimmy, hurry the fuck up, we've got to make it to the hotel lobby before the Continental Breakfast closes."

Ah...so that's what it means...

I'm sticking with the amusing version.

Your nation is secular. I'm sure you wish it were different, but life is like that at times.

I dont know what you mean when you say "your nation", but it sounds like your either not an American, or not a very good one. The United States was not secular it was based on Christianity.

I dont know what you mean when you say "your nation", but it sounds like your either not an American, or not a very good one. The United States was not secular it was based on Christianity.

I really want to debate this with you but I think Ifreann will take you apart much better

I dont know what you mean when you say "your nation", but it sounds like your either not an American, or not a very good one. The United States was not secular it was based on Christianity.

Read the treaty of damn Tripoli. Then look into the founding father's religion. Jefferson, for a starter, was a deist, and deeply criticaly of organize religion.

Before you ask, deism is incompatible with christianity.

I dont know what you mean when you say "your nation", but it sounds like your either not an American, or not a very good one. The United States was not secular it was based on Christianity.

Treaty of Tripoli. Please burn that document, erase it from our memories and then make that statement.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


Just to make sure he gets it.

And I turned the size down a bit. It was bigger than I guess it would be.

I dont know what you mean when you say "your nation", but it sounds like your either not an American, or not a very good one. The United States was not secular it was based on Christianity.

I'm Irish, and the Treaty Of Tripoli clearly states that America was NOT founded on Christian principles.

He already has. It's like that scene in the movie where the villain's been decapitated but he still walks around for a few more seconds.

Ah the headless chicken method. Gotcha. Thanks :)

I dont know what you mean when you say "your nation", but it sounds like your either not an American, or not a very good one. The United States was not secular it was based on Christianity.

I know it's been quoted already, but some things bear repeating:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

And just for good measure:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Why not once more, just to hammer the point home?

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

I dont know what you mean when you say "your nation", but it sounds like your either not an American, or not a very good one. The United States was not secular it was based on Christianity.

:headbang::headbang:

Have you just ignored everyone elses posts, completely debunking what you said?

:headbang:

edit: I rarely use emoticons, but I just couldn't help myself that time.

I dont know what you mean when you say "your nation", but it sounds like your either not an American, or not a very good one. The United States was not secular it was based on Christianity.

Have you ever read a single word of the Treaty of Tripoli?

I really want to debate this with you but I think Ifreann will take you apart much better

He already has. It's like that scene in the movie where the villain's been decapitated but he still walks around for a few more seconds.

I know it's been quoted already, but some things bear repeating:



And just for good measure:



Why not once more, just to hammer the point home?

Some thing can never be said enough. In fact, the treaty of Tripoli should replace the ten commandments in all courthouses in America

Awwww... I think we scared him off, poor little thing.

I dont know what you mean when you say "your nation", but it sounds like your either not an American, or not a very good one. The United States was not secular it was based on Christianity.

There's a really great book out called Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers by Brooke Allen. Many of the founders were, indeed, Christian. But many others were Deist, agnostic, or open scoffers at religion. So while the majority of Americans are Christians of one form or another (for now...), the country itself is not Christian.

Tho i don't know why I'm bothering. Logic just seems to bounce off people who use these arguements.

Awwww... I think we scared him off, poor little thing.

No matter how adamant the rats are, if you pour enough water into their hole, they will stop bothering you. One way or another.

Awwww... I think we scared him off, poor little thing.

I believe that he's just gone to find a blog of some like-minded person to give him the strength to put forth his "facts" without the help of things like "sources".

I believe that he's just gone to find a blog of some like-minded person to give him the strength to put forth his "facts" without the help of things like "sources".

They're always fun to point at and laugh.

As I said, there is a difference between "not giving a fuck if they do" and "supporting it". Would I support an attack on the USA? No. Would I be sympathetic to the victims of that attack? Not, much, no, since USA citizens aren't more deserving of that sympathy than those of Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam. The latter are, of course, much more numerous, so exqueeze me if I have to prioritise whom to pity and don't choose the country that continues to cause suffering to others time and time and time again.

You have a limit to the amount of pity you're capable of? That's kind of sad.

You have a limit to the amount of pity you're capable of? That's kind of sad.

And so the idiocy starts again.

It gets stale.

All of our founding fathers were Christian, and they founded the country on Christianity.

False (and irrelevant), and false.

I dont want the State in my Church, but I do want the Church in my State.

Then your opinion is contrary to both the Constitution and the intention of the Founders.

Did you know that inside the Supreme Court building is an engraving of the Ten Commandments? You know why? Because thats what our laws were founded on.

No. This is an urban myth. See snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp).

There are no particular sources of the Patriot Act saving lives that I know of, but the President and our defence organizations have stated that it has. Now, how can you prove it hasn't saved lives? Prove to me that it hasn't, and I'll stop talking about it.

First, the burden of proof ought to be on those who wish to lessen our liberty.

Second, we might well be able to "save lives" if we ignore the Bill of Rights altogether. Pre-emptive arrests, torture, presumption of guilt, etc., might be useful in solving crime/preventing terrorism but that does not make them an acceptable exchange.

And so the idiocy starts again.

It gets stale.

And crusty. Like old bread. *nod*

And crusty. Like old bread. *nod*

At least one can make bread pudding with old bread. This...is unusable.

I know it's been quoted too many times already, but I dug this image out and, damnit, I want to post it!

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7169/255gg3.jpg

This is the Mayflower Compact, written by some of the first people who came to America. This proves that America was founded on Christianity.

IN THE name of God, Amen.

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.

Oh, sorry, is that the Brits you guys had a war to kick out? Yes, that would be them.

This is the Mayflower Compact, written by some of the first people who came to America. This proves that America was founded on Christianity.

IN THE name of God, Amen.

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.
I know it's hard for you, but don't be stupid.
That proves that one colony in what would eventually become America was founded upon Christianity. We're talking about the United States of America, which is, in fact, a country.

This is the Mayflower Compact, written by some of the first people who came to America. This proves that America was founded on Christianity.

IN THE name of God, Amen.

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.

That says nothing about which principles the nation was founded on... if anything, it would just suggest the motives of some settlers.

I know it's been quoted too many times already, but I dug this image out and, damnit, I want to post it!

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7169/255gg3.jpg
I love you for that pic.
This is the Mayflower Compact, written by some of the first people who came to America. This proves that America was founded on Christianity.


IN THE name of God, Amen.

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.

Are you insane? Did you read this before you posted it?

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James

The Treaty Of Tripoli and the US Constitution say America is not Christian. The people who set up a British colony have no say in the matter.

And so the idiocy starts again.

It gets stale.

How is it idiotic? Unless i've missed something about fass admitting that it was one big joke or something?

I believe that he's just gone to find a blog of some like-minded person to give him the strength to put forth his "facts" without the help of things like "sources".

As page 15 has already shown, you were right.

How is it idiotic? Unless i've missed something about fass admitting that it was one big joke or something?
Yes, you missed it. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12754066&postcount=144)

Not a joke. Something much better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire). Lost on many, apparently.

How is it idiotic? Unless i've missed something about fass admitting that it was one big joke or something?

Given my own personal refusal to believe a gay swedish man can care that much about America, I've come to believe most of Fass' anti-US tirades are, in point of fact, satire to some degree or another.

This is the Mayflower Compact, written by some of the first people who came to America. This proves that America was founded on Christianity.

IN THE name of God, Amen.

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.

Oh, failure.


Or are you still loyal to the royal family of England?

This is the Mayflower Compact, written by some of the first people who came to America. This proves that America was founded on Christianity.

IN THE name of God, Amen.

We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620.

And? The Mayflower Compact doesn't even apply to the United States. It applied to a small city of religious nutsos who had been kicked out of Britain. It isn't an official document for the United States, in isn't even culturally indicative, since the Puritains were only important in the New England region, and only for a short time, at that. The Treaty of Tripoli is a binding document, and it is culturally indicative, and it says the opposite.

I know it's hard for you, but don't be stupid.
That proves that one colony in what would eventually become America was founded upon Christianity. We're talking about the United States of America, which is, in fact, a country.

It doesn't even proove that. It prooves that a single sub-colony that was quickly absorbed by the Mass. Bay colony was founded by a handful of religious radicals who had been kicked out of Britain for causing trouble one time too many.

No far-left? What does that make Bill Mayer, Al Franken, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore, and Hillary Clinton? The Patriot Act has saved lives by listening in on terrorist plots. And they true America hating comes from your constant hatred for this country, and the fact that you would sooner protect terrorists than American citizens. You want to turn America into an Anarchy, and eradicate all Christianity, which by the way is what the country was founded on.

Silly liberals with there extreme leftist views! Oh wait the leftist in America is the centrist in the rest of the world. The Government of the USA and thoe that still support Bush are the ones that should be feared, as they are the ones that are destroying what their nation was based on which was actually freedom not Christianity.

Ronald Reagan gave the Iraqis and Iranians weaponsand money because he knew they were trouble. He them the money and weapons so they would kill each other off. And if he hadnt done that we would have lost alot more troops in Iraq. But heres something you may not know, Bill Clinton gave a nuclear reactor, and billions of dollars to North Korea. Now call me crazy, but I do belive Nukes kill more people than guns.


If I remember correctly Reagan had no idea officially about the deals with Iran or Contra Affair. The men responsible were prosecuted.

It doesn't even proove that. It prooves that a single sub-colony that was quickly absorbed by the Mass. Bay colony was founded by a handful of religious radicals who had been kicked out of Britain for causing trouble one time too many.

Okay, true. But my basic point still stands, I think-- even moreso, since he can't even say it about a whole colony.

Yes, you missed it. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12754066&postcount=144)

Not a joke. Something much better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire). Lost on many, apparently.

I thought it was some form of ironic satire myself at first, but he was doing it for so long, without making it ever seem obvious at one point, that it seemed likely he actually believed that shit. Nevertheless, I still think the premise of the satire is flawed. I also still think he has too much of an anti american bias and unnescecery (sp?) hatred for the american people.

I thought it was some form of ironic satire myself at first, but he was doing it for so long, without making it ever seem obvious at one point, that it seemed likely he actually believed that shit. Nevertheless, I still think the premise of the satire is flawed. I also still think he has too much of an anti american bias and unnescecery (sp?) hatred for the american people.

Fass is, in many ways, a disciple of the Reductio ad Absurdum form of argument dissection.

I thought it was some form of ironic satire myself at first, but he was doing it for so long, without making it ever seem obvious at one point, that it seemed likely he actually believed that shit. Nevertheless, I still think the premise of the satire is flawed. I also still think he has too much of an anti american bias and unnescecery (sp?) hatred for the american people.

Yes well:

Because satire often combines anger and humour it can be profoundly disturbing - because it is essentially ironic or sarcastic, it is often misunderstood.

Common uncomprehending responses to satire include revulsion (accusations of poor taste, or that it's "just not funny" for instance), to the idea that the satirist actually does support the ideas, policies, or people he is attacking.

I'd say it's less a problem with his posts, and more a problem with a lack of comprehension on the parts of certain readers.

Now who is to blame for that I wonder?

Fass is, in many ways, a disciple of the Reductio ad Absurdum form of argument dissection.

I frankly adore how people can't seem to follow it, and then complain that he was being too complicated.

If they can't keep up, perhaps they need to stick to posters that they can more easily understand.

Yes, it went on for a while, because the point was missed again, and again, and again.

I frankly adore how people can't seem to follow it, and then complain that he was being too complicated.

If they can't keep up, perhaps they need to stick to posters that they can more easily understand.

I have often thought his posts a little too highbrow for the general General populace. But it's not as if I take immense pride in getting his statements either. I'm just used to reductio ad absurdum and satire, having used both myself in the past.

Um... Could it be that both sides of the argument are both being controlled by people that may only have one viewpoint on how a government or a world should run (e.g Liberal or Conservatives) and are the only ones screaming loud enough to silence the people who can be considered the moderates and thus is the source of this problem?

Yes well:



I'd say it's less a problem with his posts, and more a problem with a lack of comprehension on the parts of certain readers.

Now who is to blame for that I wonder?

Or, perhaps since you seem to be the only person who actually got his satire, it was his fault for not getting his point across well about how hypocritical/ironic etc... we all are.

edit: fixed

Or, perhaps since you seem to be the only person who actually got his satire, it was his fault for not getting his point across well about how hypocritical/ironic etc... we all are.

edit: fixed
Yes, let's dumb it down for you next time, shall we? Wouldn't want you getting too confused.

And I'm hardly the only one who noticed.

I have often thought his posts a little too highbrow for the general General populace. But it's not as if I take immense pride in getting his statements either. I'm just used to reductio ad absurdum and satire, having used both myself in the past.

Too highbrow...that's rather sad though, isn't it? I'd rather hope we'd encourage more of that rather than :sniper::mp5::headbang: and so on.

It honestly doesn't take a genius. I don't see it as highbrow, I see it as bloody obvious...turn an argument around and see how it looks applied to oneself. It's not string theory.

Edit: Then again, I avoid using satire here, since it invariably gets me labelled a racist etc. I suppose it is a little too much to ask that people get a clue.

Yes, let's dumb it down for you next time, shall we? Wouldn't want you getting too confused.

And I'm hardly the only one who noticed.

Whatever. It's not that I didn't get it, I "got it" at first straight away, but since no person who actually wants to make a point would decide to troll his satirical posts for so long, I assumed that it was actually a genuine belief of his.

Whatever. It's not that I didn't get it, I "got it" at first straight away, but since no person who actually wants to make a point would decide to troll his satirical posts for so long, I assumed that it was actually a genuine belief of his.
Really. Amazing. So how many posts does a person using satire get to make before it becomes a genuine belief?

When I taught, and a student didn't get something...I didn't blurt out the answer. I lead them to it. By your accounts, that would translate to me not actually KNOWING the answer, because I let it go on too long. And sometimes it went on for a very, very long time, especially if the student was particularily dull.

In any case, enough of this hijacking...I don't want you people to stop hating Fass anyway. It's too much fun watching you create him, and then fight that phantom apparition.

It won't be the Liberals who destroy america it will be the conservatives who seem to be stuck in the 1800's seeing as they keep name dropping "God". I thought this was put to rest by Neitzche"God is dead.":p Not to mention the patriot act which is very King louis the 14th to me spying on ppl although the FBI has been doing that forever,(Mostly due to the fact that J. Edgar hoover was madder then a hatter.) I wanna know how she knows what liberals think and say behind closed doors does she hang out at super secret let's destroy america with our liberal ways garden parties?. I laughed at the bit about GW standing up to enviromentalism as a new religion, it was a religion before christianity was even thought of it just had a different name.

If Fass didn't exist, it would be necessary for us to create him. This is good to know...

Ha, don't read too much into that. I'm just saying that most of the time what 'Fass believes' is incorrectly attributed TO him, rather than being expressed BY him.

Really. Amazing. So how many posts does a person using satire get to make before it becomes a genuine belief?

When I taught, and a student didn't get something...I didn't blurt out the answer. I lead them to it. By your accounts, that would translate to me not actually KNOWING the answer, because I let it go on too long. And sometimes it went on for a very, very long time, especially if the student was particularily dull.

In any case, enough of this hijacking...I don't want you people to stop hating Fass anyway. It's too much fun watching you create him, and then fight that phantom apparition.

If Fass didn't exist, it would be necessary for us to create him. This is good to know...

Ha, don't read too much into that. I'm just saying that most of the time what 'Fass believes' is incorrectly attributed TO him, rather than being expressed BY him.

I was mostly kidding.

It won't be the Liberals who destroy america it will be the conservatives who seem to be stuck in the 1800's seeing as they keep name dropping "God". I thought this was put to rest by Neitzche"God is dead.":p Not to mention the patriot act which is very King louis the 14th to me spying on ppl although the FBI has been doing that forever,(Mostly due to the fact that J. Edgar hoover was madder then a hatter.) I wanna know how she knows what liberals think and say behind closed doors does she hang out at super secret let's destroy america with our liberal ways garden parties?. I laughed at the bit about GW standing up to enviromentalism as a new religion, it was a religion before christianity was even thought of it just had a different name.

Hehe quite right. However, personally I'd prefer the destruction of both sides since those stuck in the center can't seem to get a word in edgewise. If you do that we can begin to move forward. I don't like the idea of either side controlling the situation 100%.

I love how outraged even the most ardent anti-Bush yank gets when a non-yank talks about the US.

It's like...hey, I can pick on my siblings, but YOU'D BETTER NOT!

Well, us yanks don't have another country to trumpet the superiority of. :p

I frankly adore how people can't seem to follow it, and then complain that he was being too complicated.

If they can't keep up, perhaps they need to stick to posters that they can more easily understand.

Yes, it went on for a while, because the point was missed again, and again, and again.

...

I love you for this brilliance. I'd use a fluffle, but I'm afraid that if I do so I might accidentely taint my mind with the idiocy of some of those who overly abuse the fluffle.

The shit I miss when I go off to spend the afternoon reading a book in the park. Incredible. Oh well, it could just as easily have been me being pilloried by angry NSers... I'm quite taken aback by a few of you, though. And not even just the usual suspects, either.

Tsk-tsk.