The Far Left Club - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Far Left Club

Posted by LatinLover on Oct-04-2007 17:01:

The Far Left Club

I decided to create this club for all my fellow far left liberals do discuss far left issues, to criticize the GOP, and to discuss all their conspiracies

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-04-2007 17:44:

Re: The Far Left Club

quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
I decided to create this club for all my fellow far left liberals do discuss far left issues, to criticize the GOP, and to discuss all their conspiracies

Hmmm, so the only ones excluded in this exclusive club of yours are the roughly 1/3 of Americans like yourself?:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

This thread adds nothing to discussion, along with a great many of your posts. You've thrown up quite a few threads in the past few days with little commentary and supporting evidence for any counterarguments against your commentary.

Are you trying to get yourself banned again or something?

Posted by LatinLover on Oct-04-2007 17:55:

Re: Re: The Far Left Club

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Hmmm, so the only ones excluded in this exclusive club of yours are the roughly 1/3 of Americans like yourself?:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

This thread adds nothing to discussion, along with a great many of your posts. You've thrown up quite a few threads in the past few days with little commentary and supporting evidence for any counterarguments against your commentary.

Are you trying to get yourself banned again or something?

Just go back and check those threads, I have posted on them

Sorry dude if I cant get back to some of them, you know I do have a life I have things to do and dont have all the time to be in the internet. I hope you can understand

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Oct-04-2007 18:03:

Re: The Far Left Club

Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-04-2007 18:03:

I thought this article was poignant and well written

LEFT VS. RIGHT: THE ILLUSION OF OPPOSITES
Analysis � 2007 by G. Edward Griffin. Updated September 23

Would you rather be a Neoconservative or a Progressive? That is a trick question. The trick is in the fact that, although there may be differences between the rhetoric and short-term agendas of these groups, their long-term goals actually are the same. They may differ over how to fight a war in the Middle East but not over the right of the President to wage such a war empowered by the UN instead of Congress. They may differ over what kind of speech should be forbidden ("subversive" speech vs. "hate" speech, for example) but not over the right of the government to forbid it. They may differ over how fast to bankrupt the nation to provide benefits for its citizens but not over the assumption that providing benefits is what governments are supposed to do. They disagree over tactics, timing, and style, but not objectives. They fight for dominance within the New World Order, but they work together to build it. That is because both groups have embraced the underlying ideology of global collectivism.

The illusion of opposites has been a dominant part of the world's political landscape for over a century and it has been the primary reason for the advance of collectivism during that time. In the epic struggles of World War II, millions of patriotic citizens within the combatant nations passionately supported their leaders, believing they were defending against an evil empire. Russians fought for Communism; Germans fought for Nazism; Italians fought for Fascism. Yet, these were merely variants of the underlying ideology, called collectivism, that was common to them all.

Americans, of course, were horrified by such political doctrines and fought, instead, for Democracy. They did not realize that, while that word filled their heads with visions of freedom and justice for all, their leaders had another definition as they quietly converted the United States into a collectivist regime incredibly similar to the ones against which they fought. The contest was never about ideology. It was always about who would be the victor and who would be the vanquished; who would emerge from the war with world power; who would control the natural resources; who would create the new boundaries; who would judge and who would hang.

In our present era, there are few champions for Communism and practically none for Nazism or Fascism, but everyone claims to be a champion of Democracy. Neoconservatives and Progressives, alike, sprinkle their rhetoric with this word like salt on a fresh baked potato. This is a clue that it has no meaningful definition. It is used as a political mantra to hypnotize the masses into a receptive state of mind. After all, anyone who speaks in defense of Democracy has got to be a good guy, right?

In today's debate, the illusion of opposites has become a myth of gigantic proportions. On one side - supposedly the Left side - we have Leftists, Communists, Socialists, Marxists, Neo Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, Liberals, Progressives, and (in The U.S.) Democrats. On the other side - supposedly the Right side - we have Rightists, Nazis, Neo Nazis, Fascists, Conservatives, Neoconservatives, Reactionaries, and (in the U.S.) Republicans.

Almost all modern political debate is framed by these words; yet, there is no one who can define what they mean except to their own satisfaction. There is no universally accepted understanding that will be accepted by advocates and critics alike. The possible exceptions are those that bear the names of authors, such as Marx, Lenin, and Mao, because it could be argued that they represent the views expressed in their writings. However, we are still left with the formidable task of accurately summarizing those views to everyone's satisfaction.

Social mores and religious beliefs sometimes divide along the Left-Right political axis. Those on the Left are more likely to embrace life styles that those on the Right would consider improper or even sinful. Those on the Right are more likely to be church-going members of an organized religion. But these are not definitive values, because there is a great deal of diversity on both sides. Republicans smoke pot. Democrats go to church. Social or religious values cannot be included in any meaningful definition of these groups.

Be that as it may, the degree to which there truly are definable qualities to these labels is the same degree to which we can understand that they are similar. For example, if there is any doubt of the similarity between the collectivism of Marx and the collectivism of Hitler, all one has to do is read Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. The point is that, when the labels are peeled off and the underlying ideologies are examined, we come inexorably to the conclusion that every one of them is built upon the foundation of collectivism. We are expected to choose sides when, in reality, there is no substantial difference between them. No matter which side we choose, we are on the side of collectivism. That is the trick.

What are the elements of collectivism that are common to all of these seemingly opposite forces? Collectivists on the so-called Left and Right agree that:

Rights are derived from the state;
The group is more important than the individual;
Coercion is the preferred method to bring about reform;
Laws should be applied differently to different classes;
Providing benefits (redistributing wealth) is the proper role of government.

These are the core principles held by collectivists in their quest to remold mankind to their hearts desire. The main disagreement among them is over how those principles should be applied. They do not realize that it's not the application of those principles, but the principles themselves that cause injustice, scarcity, and freedom's demise. History has already shown this truth in the form of despotism under Nazism (the so-called Right) and Communism (the so-called Left). It is sad that intelligent people with knowledge of this history still cling to the myth that they are opposites when it is so clear they are merely different manifestations of the same ideology.

MEET GEORGE LAKOFF
In 2006, the illusion of opposites was brilliantly performed in a book entitled Whose Freedom, by George Lakoff, an illusionist for the Democrat Party. Lakoff is a professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley. His motivation for writing is revealed by his previous works. One was a political strategy entitled, Don't Think of an Elephant! self-labeled as "the Essential Guide for Progressives", which featured a foreword by former Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean. The other was a video presentation entitled How Democrats and Progressives Can Win.

As we would expect, Lakoff says that the choice in America today is between Neoconservatives and Progressives. He, of course, is a self-styled Progressive, but nowhere does he define what that word means. Instead, he devotes the entire book to a spirited monologue describing how evil and ignorant neoconservatives are and how humanitarian and enlightened (and intelligent, too) progressives are. That's all we need to know. By the way, the Left-leaning collectivists also enjoy describing themselves as intellectuals, implying that anyone who does not accept their world view is stupid or anti-intellectual. That's just more of the psychological word games that Lakoff, as a linguist, knows so well.

Lakoff skillfully places the issue of freedom into the cracked mold of left/liberal/progressive vs. right/conservative/reactionary. As I have argued previously, these words are not definable and, worse, tend to hide the fact that advocates of both groups are united behind the political philosophy of collectivism. Lakoff, himself, advocates many features of collectivism in his books.

Both "Left and Right" are ready to sacrifice freedom for the furtherance of their agendas. Both camps are willing to grant freedom to those who accept their political and social mores but do not hesitate to withhold it from those who oppose them. Both camps are skilled at creating laws that convert dissidents into criminals. If today's so-called progressives were to gain control of the government, they would be no different. They would justify oppression, not in the name of national security as the neoconservatives do, but in the name defending democracy and peace, as Communist regimes do.

Perhaps I am too quick to judge Lakoff as an illusionist, for that implies he is a willing agent of the enemies of freedom. It is entirely possible that he has not yet considered all the ramifications of this issue. It is possible that he has never heard individualism advocated and defended. Without that, he likely would consider it to be the creed of selfishness and ignorance. With that view, collectivism would be the only reasonable option, and he would have to choose between the Left and Right manifestations of it.

And so, to George Lakoff and all others who identify with any of the terms on the Left or Right, I invite you to climb to the next plateau of understanding. I am grateful that you care about the future. Error is better than apathy. Error can be corrected in time to change the outcome. Apathy is seldom corrected until it is too late.

For the author's deeper analysis of this issue, see The Future Is Calling, Part One.
www.freedomforceinternational.org/p...urecalling1.pdf

Posted by Lebezniatnikov on Oct-04-2007 18:08:

quote:
October 4, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
The New L-Word: Neocon
By ROGER COHEN
A few years back, at the height of the jingoistic post-9/11 wave, the dirtiest word in the American political lexicon was �liberal.� Everyone from President Bush to Ann Coulter was using it to denote wimplike, Volvo-driving softies too spineless for dangerous times and too given to speaking French.

Liberals were going to hand the country�s defense to the United Nations, turn the war on terror into police work and cave to bin Laden�s Islamofascism.

As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California declared in 2004: �If you believe you must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism � then you are a Republican.�

No matter that none of the above was true. No matter that 20th-century liberal thought, like Isaiah Berlin�s, stood in consistent opposition to totalitarianism in fascist or communist form. The nuance-free message served to get the commander in chief re-elected.

In time, the fever ebbed. Iraq imploded, Bush fizzled and the Democrats took Congress. A retooled Schwarzenegger began sounding like a closet Democrat.

Not least, as America bumped down to earth, �liberal� lost the mantle of political insult most foul. Its place was taken by the pervasive, glib �neocon.�

What�s a neocon? A liberal �mugged by reality,� Irving Kristol said. The reality in question, back then, was communism-as-evil, the centrality of military force, the indispensability of the American idea and much else. But that�s ancient history. The neocons are the guys who gave us the Iraq war.

They�re the guys who, in the words of leftist commentator and blogger Matthew Yglesias, �believe that America should coercively dominate the world through military force� and �believe in a dogmatic form of American exceptionalism� and �favor the creation of a U.S.-dominated �universal empire.� �

But the term, in these Walt-Mearsheimered days, often denotes more than that. Neocon, for many, has become shorthand for neocon-Zionist conspiracy, whatever that may be, although probably involving some combination of plans to exploit Iraqi oil, bomb Iran and apply U.S. power to Israel�s benefit.

Beyond that, neocon has morphed into an all-purpose insult for anyone who still believes that American power is inextricable from global stability and still thinks the muscular anti-totalitarian U.S. interventionism that brought down Slobodan Milosevic has a place, and still argues, like Christopher Hitchens, that ousting Saddam Hussein put the United States �on the right side of history.�

In short, neoconitis, a condition as rampant as liberal-lampooning a few years back, has left scant room for liberal hawks. �Neocon is an insult used to obliterate the existence of this liberal position,� says Paul Berman, a writer often so insulted.

Liberal interventionists, if you recall, were people like myself for whom the sight in the 1990s of hundreds of thousands of European Muslims processed through Serbian concentration camps, or killed in them, left little doubt of the merits, indeed the necessity, of U.S. military action in the name of the human dignity that only open societies afford.

Without such action in Bosnia and Kosovo, Europe would not be at peace today.

One reluctant liberal interventionist signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 that said: �It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.� His name was Bill Clinton. Baghdad is closer to Sarajevo than the left has allowed.

For this left, anyone who supported the Iraq invasion, or sees merits to it despite the catastrophic Bush-Rumsfeld bungling, is a neocon. That makes Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik and Kanan Makiya and Bernard Kouchner neocons, among others who don�t think like Norman Podhoretz but have more firsthand knowledge of totalitarian hell than countless slick purveyors of the neocon insult.

But who cares about such distinctions? Democrats have learned from their nuance-free bludgeoning by Republicans in the 2004 election, and they�re reciprocating. I�ll see your �liberal� with a �neocon� � and truth be damned.

But distinctions matter. The neocon taste for American empire is not the liberal hawk�s belief in the bond between American power and freedom�s progress. As for social questions, the gulf is large.

Has Iraq deep-sixed liberal interventionism? Kouchner, a socialist, is now French foreign minister � hardly a sign the credo�s dead. He, in turn, is close to Richard Holbrooke, who brought peace to Bosnia and may be secretary of state in a Hillary Clinton administration.

When John Kerry was vilified as a flip-flopping liberal by those armchair warriors, Bush and Cheney, I knew where I stood. When Michnik and Kouchner are neocons and MoveOn.org is the Petraeus-insulting face of never-set-foot-in-a-war-zone liberalism, I�m with the Polish-French brigade against the right-thinking American left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/o...agewanted=print

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-04-2007 19:31:

Re: Re: Re: The Far Left Club

quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
Just go back and check those threads, I have posted on them

Some, perhaps, most certainly not most of them. Furthermore, most, if not all threads you seemingly disappear from and thus create yet new threads altogether. But I guess this is your excuse that follows?:

quote:
Sorry dude if I cant get back to some of them, you know I do have a life I have things to do and dont have all the time to be in the internet. I hope you can understand

We all have lives, and I'd venture to say my life is just as silly hectic as anyone else's. Yet I still find time to give the complement to reply to points made that directly counter any assertions I make, whether it be a concession or a further engagement with supporting evidence for my points made.

It's not that difficult, especially for one who seemingly has the time to find more newsworthy info. to create brand new posts here like yourself.

So let's see, you won't join the military because you hate the military but you feel that supporting the war cause is most sufficient with your keyboard and posts instead, and now you seemingly don't return the courtesy of engaging fully in debates posed at you because you apparently don't have time.

Damn, boy, what good are you to us then?

Posted by josh4 on Oct-04-2007 19:32:

Re: The Far Left Club

Posted by Fir3start3r on Oct-04-2007 20:40:

Re: Re: The Far Left Club

quote:
Originally posted by josh4
you mean the majority of PDD?

lol, so true...

Posted by Trancer-X on Oct-04-2007 21:15:

quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
lol, so true...

It's easy to categorize political ideologies themselves by respectively putting them in to little boxes but I really don't think that the same can be said in regards to individuals selected from a diverse variety of political and socioeconomic backgrounds.

In regards to my own views on various issues, I've been told by many people that I'm both a liberal and a conservative.

For the most part, it all depends on where the line is drawn on each particular issue.

IMO, I think that John Zmirak said it pretty well in his article in the American Conservative,

quote:
This bipolar model casts political philosophy in terms of a two-sided tug-of-war. And we all know where a tug-of-war usually ends�with both teams down in the muck.

(http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article26.html)

Posted by LatinLover on Oct-04-2007 22:02:

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Far Left Club

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Some, perhaps, most certainly not most of them. Furthermore, most, if not all threads you seemingly disappear from and thus create yet new threads altogether. But I guess this is your excuse that follows?:

We all have lives, and I'd venture to say my life is just as silly hectic as anyone else's. Yet I still find time to give the complement to reply to points made that directly counter any assertions I make, whether it be a concession or a further engagement with supporting evidence for my points made.

It's not that difficult, especially for one who seemingly has the time to find more newsworthy info. to create brand new posts here like yourself.

So let's see, you won't join the military because you hate the military but you feel that supporting the war cause is most sufficient with your keyboard and posts instead, and now you seemingly don't return the courtesy of engaging fully in debates posed at you because you apparently don't have time.

Damn, boy, what good are you to us then?

I hate the military, please go back and show where I have said that I dislike our military.... You see you are full of BS, thats why I dont or anyone here should take you seriously. This shows how much you get things out of context to prove a point.

Let me tell you im a very busy man. I dont have the time to engage in internet debates especially to those that dont deserve the honor to engage in a debate with me. I mean until something peoplen start showing intelligence Ill consider it

Posted by shaolin_Z on Oct-04-2007 22:09:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Far Left Club

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-04-2007 23:50:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Far Left Club

quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
I hate the military, please go back and show where I have said that I dislike our military....You see you are full of BS, thats why I dont or anyone here should take you seriously. This shows how much you get things out of context to prove a point.

One of the primary establishments of the military itself is the chain of command and learning to take orders. The implication of you hating to take orders from authoritative figures is not a terrible leap of logic to make. However if you want to hold me verbatum then I will gladly change my statement to the following:

quote:
So let's see, you won't join the military because you hate authority (which is crucial for the military) but you feel that supporting the war cause is most sufficient with your keyboard and posts instead, and now you seemingly don't return the courtesy of engaging fully in debates posed at you because you apparently don't have time.

Damn, boy, what good are you to us then?

Better?

quote:
Let me tell you im a very busy man. I dont have the time to engage in internet debates especially to those that dont deserve the honor to engage in a debate with me. I mean until something peoplen start showing intelligence Ill consider it

Funny how you continually sing the same bullshit tune. But surely such a busy man such as yourself could find time to address DIRECT POINTS made to your posts rather than continue to post yet more threads. What are you averaging, about 3-4 new threads/day now?

Well allow me to be a bit more direct, once again. I'm going to do what I can to quell 19 year old very busy "men" like you who infiltrate our PDD forum with your incessant troll-like behavior and posts.

You continually create new threads while failing to argue in good faith and address any points made directly towards your unsupported assertions in previous threads. Perhaps by itself this may not be an issue but considering the sheer number of points you failed to address plus new posts you create, this silliness is becoming substantial.

You continually demonstrate your lack of maturity in simple debating skills by the same aforementioned reasons.

When cornered you either run away or throw us a few superiority complex lines about how inferior we all are in your presence.

You create useless threads such as this one for no means of rational discourse and debate but as a Coulteresque baiting tactic.

With the exception of a few less stupid fucking faces, you've shown little if any progress from your prior banning a few months back.

My "librul" instincts have allowed me to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you enough time and chances to see if you are willing to improve. But even my tolerance has grown thin. The dumbing down of this particular forum will not be the result from the likes of recalcitrant children, excuse me "men" like you. It is what separates this forum from the other forums.

I have resisted PMing both Lira and Neo up to this point in order to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll now leave it in their worthy hands as to what they consider as the best course of action. If they let this go, I will of course concede to their reasons. However I would hope that they and most members who post in this forum have clearly seen your actions in the same manner as I have.

We shall soon see, sir.

Posted by LatinLover on Oct-05-2007 01:06:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Far Left Club

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
One of the primary establishments of the military itself is the chain of command and learning to take orders. The implication of you hating to take orders from authoritative figures is not a terrible leap of logic to make. However if you want to hold me verbatum then I will gladly change my statement to the following:

Better?

Funny how you continually sing the same bullshit tune. But surely such a busy man such as yourself could find time to address DIRECT POINTS made to your posts rather than continue to post yet more threads. What are you averaging, about 3-4 new threads/day now?

Well allow me to be a bit more direct, once again. I'm going to do what I can to quell 19 year old very busy "men" like you who infiltrate our PDD forum with your incessant troll-like behavior and posts.

You continually create new threads while failing to argue in good faith and address any points made directly towards your unsupported assertions in previous threads. Perhaps by itself this may not be an issue but considering the sheer number of points you failed to address plus new posts you create, this silliness is becoming substantial.

You continually demonstrate your lack of maturity in simple debating skills by the same aforementioned reasons.

When cornered you either run away or throw us a few superiority complex lines about how inferior we all are in your presence.

You create useless threads such as this one for no means of rational discourse and debate but as a Coulteresque baiting tactic.

With the exception of a few less stupid fucking faces, you've shown little if any progress from your prior banning a few months back.

My "librul" instincts have allowed me to give you the benefit of the doubt and give you enough time and chances to see if you are willing to improve. But even my tolerance has grown thin. The dumbing down of this particular forum will not be the result from the likes of recalcitrant children, excuse me "men" like you. It is what separates this forum from the other forums.

I have resisted PMing both Lira and Neo up to this point in order to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll now leave it in their worthy hands as to what they consider as the best course of action. If they let this go, I will of course concede to their reasons. However I would hope that they and most members who post in this forum have clearly seen your actions in the same manner as I have.

We shall soon see, sir.

I mean dont hate because Im smarting than you. You know that I dont try that hard while you try hard to prove something. I mean no offense, I dont need to post the opinions of any writer or have all these polls, that we know what the results are, to prove something. I mean every time you post a poll on how americans feels towards this administration, we all know the results!

I mean I am not here to argue or to debate anyone I am here just to share my opinions. I mean as I have said, and I say it from the bottom of my heart, I havent yet found an individual worth debating. I this board is 99.99% liberal, I am not liberal nor a republican but at this moment I am leaning to the Rep side because the Dem are basically a joke. And here comes MisterOctopus1, crying because of my stance on issues. I mean you should grow up! You should learn to respect the opinions of others. That is what this board is about, I respect your flawed position on many issues, and I expect the same respect from you. You want to call me out to prove things to you, hey a got news for you I DONT WANT TO! I have the right to do so.

That comment you made about me about the Military shows how much BS you are full of. I have the highest respect for the institution. Let me ask you MisterOctopus1, how have you served this great nation of ours? Have you been in the Military?

Atleast I support my troops and keep the America spirit alive to support their will to succeed. On like you, saying we have failed in Iraq. I came up with the conclusion that you are anti american, I dont know I just think that, i might be wrong

Posted by Krypton on Oct-05-2007 01:31:

Ban him. ...AGAIN...Matter of fact, ban his IP address

I long for the days when the PDD actually had some QUALITY to it. Notice how much time we now spend flaming this idiot...

Time that destroys the quality of our forum.

Latinlover, we don't give a fuck how busy you are, or how superior you think you are. We welcome opposing viewpoints...as long as you can back yourself up with DEBATE, sources, or some expert opinion other than your self-centered SPECULATION....

Posted by LatinLover on Oct-05-2007 01:36:

quote:
Originally posted by Krypton
Ban him. ...AGAIN...Matter of fact, ban his IP address

I long for the days when the PDD actually had some QUALITY to it. Notice how much time we now spend flaming this idiot...

Time that destroys the quality of our forum.

Latinlover, we don't give a fuck how busy you are, or how superior you think you are. We welcome opposing viewpoints...as long as you can back yourself up with DEBATE, sources, or some expert opinion other than your self-centered SPECULATION....

Dude grow up

I am closing this thread

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-05-2007 01:36:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Far Left Club

quote:
Originally posted by LatinLover
I mean dont hate because Im smarting than you.

Gosh, I'll certainly try not to......

quote:
You know that I dont try that hard while you try hard to prove something. I mean no offense, I dont need to post the opinions of any writer or have all these polls, that we know what the results are, to prove something. I mean every time you post a poll on how americans feels towards this administration, we all know the results!

Hmmm, that's interesting of you to reveal that the information and polls I post, always contradicting your points and opinions, just happen to be things that you already know.

Yet you post your contradictory opinions regardless. How useful.

quote:
I mean I am not here to argue or to debate anyone

Unfortunately you've made that patently obvious, despite the name of this forum being:

"Political Discussion / Debate"

quote:
I am here just to share my opinions.

There's plenty of other forums for that. This is not one of them without supporting those opinions with evidence.

quote:
I mean as I have said, and I say it from the bottom of my heart, I havent yet found an individual worth debating.

And I mean it from my bare, pimpled white ass - you're useless if you refuse to engage in debate here.

quote:
I this board is 99.99% liberal, I am not liberal nor a republican but at this moment I am leaning to the Rep side because the Dem are basically a joke.

As we're all perfectly aware. So what?

quote:
And here comes MisterOctopus1, crying because of my stance on issues. I mean you should grow up!

This is coming from a little 19 yo kiddo who loves making a little play on names. Go figure.

quote:
You should learn to respect the opinions of others.

Outside of this forum I do. Inside this forum I respect only those opinions that are supported, ESPECIALLY from newcomers such as yourself. Get used to it.

quote:
That is what this board is about,

You're in no position to tell me or anyone else here what this board is about, especially when your ass has been banned from it once already.

quote:
I respect your flawed position on many issues, and I expect the same respect from you.

If my position has ever been so flawed, the onus has always been on YOU to demonstrate that. You have NOT ONCE done so with supporting evidence. Furthermore, your language and creation of useless and baiting threads such as this one clearly demonstrates anything but respect for my position (which happens to be the same positions as the majority of Americans).

So don't expect respect from me if:

1. You can't support your assertions in a DEBATE forum
2. You continue to demonstrate a lack of respect of opinions (and supporting opinions like my own) that differ from yours.

Understand?

quote:
You want to call me out to prove things to you, hey a got news for you I DONT WANT TO! I have the right to do so.

If the mods deem you to have a right to be in this forum and behave the way that you do, then you'll be correct and vindicated. We'll soon see.

quote:
That comment you made about me about the Military shows how much BS you are full of. I have the highest respect for the institution.

That comment was modified upon further examination as well as explained further in detail. Considering explanation and support of assertions are completely alien to you, I wouldn't expect you to understand this. Oh well.

quote:
Let me ask you MisterOctopus1, how have you served this great nation of ours? Have you been in the Military?

Do I support this war cause of this president in Iraq? If I did support this cause in the same manner as you, anyone would have a rightful criticism of calling me out to go and fight that war I believe so strongly as you clearly demonstrate.

As it's painfully obvious, I don't support this war, therefore I have no philosophical obligation to fulfill by being in the military at present.

But if it's any consolation to you, I am considering on doing contract work as a Physical Therapist once I graduate on military bases nearby. We'll see how the market looks once I'm finished in May.

quote:
Atleast I support my troops and keep the America spirit alive to support their will to succeed.

Your support is nothing but talk behind a keyboard. How wonderful and thoughtful those soldiers must think of you. Would those troops not be best served by you showing your true support by picking up a gun and fighting next to them? The SURGE! troops will be starting their redeployment soon. I see no better chance than for strapping young, war supporters like yourself to support this cause in true fashion by enlisting.

What are you waiting for?

quote:
On like you, saying we have failed in Iraq. I came up with the conclusion that you are anti american, I dont know I just think that, i might be wrong

I know how you feel. You've implied as much all too often. Unfortunately for you, my sentiments are shared by over 2/3 of Americans. Funny how so many "Anti-Americans" there are out there like me who just don't support this idiot of a President like you.

I'm sorry, did you have a point somewhere in this post?