 |
|
|
|
Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 02:26 am  (My response to peanut-head new world order creep jimmy carter) "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned. An era of corruption will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed." Abraham Lincoln ____________________________________________
| |
| Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 04:46 pm The Dude knew what he was talking about way back then...funny how things never change. abe / Zeba
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 11:41 am I think this one may be the final blow. When they murder the Americans who oppose fascism (and they will because that's what they do) the world will become a much darker place for everyone. Even though we didn't control the country we were at a point in our history where the conquered state was compelled to provide an illusion in order to complete their control grid. This illusion provided a compulsion to do the 'American thing', hence they robed resources in the name of democracy, democracy being that 'American thing'. Earlier on in the history they were bound even more because they were deceiving men who were more righteous, and God revering men. Their attack is to erode moral fiber, disintegrate the American family, and control the minds of the citizens. The world needs to wake up. It's not just Germany this time. This time it's global, its all of us and if you don't see what I see give it a couple of years and it should all become painfully clear to you.
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 04:36 pm People have been spouting this nonsense for generations. What they're really afraid of is change. The moral compass of the world is begining to change direction, towards a more fair type of society in which equal opportunity actually means something. And most Americans cannot stand to believe it. Its alright though. Every world-leading empire in history has gone through the same thing as their power waned.
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 06:04 pm "towards a more fair type of society in which equal opportunity actually means something" More subjective words have never been spoken. The word "fair" causes as many divisions in society as any other public issue of the day.
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 06:41 pm Of course its subjective, BC. This entire thread is pesonal opinion. What I mean by fair is the opening up of opportunity to all levels of society, not just those with more money.
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 10:02 pm Yeah, but the opinion of a UNITED STATES PRESIDENT matters a little more to me than the opinion of the average joe lol and not just one, look at many of my posts. I could argue entire topics with nothing but presidential quotes. Trust me, I'd love to be wrong.
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 11:43 pm It's not personal opinion. If one bothered to do a couple hours of research, one would find the evidence is all over the place and overwhelming. Bludgeoning dissent with false accusations of racism isn't "fair". What a loaded word.
| |
| Friday, September 18, 2009 - 11:48 pm The percieved problems of the US system are not my own, so I'll refrain from further comment on that one. Your view of government is entirely detached from my own, as is your moral prerogative.
| |
| Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 12:40 am You're correct, not all people like being free and making their own decisions. I see it in acquaintances and family even. Some people loved being bossed around. Get off on it I guess. I sort of understand, powerful government can be alluring with all it's promises, but it always either fails to meet even minimal expectations or has serious caveats attached, because it's just rich people using the masses for personal gain. How many poor people have been members of congress? How can you expect the poor or middle class will have any sort of political power...because millionaires and their billionaire backers are looking out for them? And yet the faith in some sort of false messiah to come along and save them from their misery continues. All some people have to look forward to is hope. The same manipulation of complex emotions is used by religions as well as all other institutions of social control. The abhorrence, or at least irreverence for critical thought is even more widespread and culturally expected, and that is no accident. What do you think the sims of this game would think of us? Are we building public services because we care about a piece of data that has a nominal value attached, or do we want gold coins that come our way when the people aren't revolting or slacking off? We are the elites here.
| |
| Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 02:05 pm Race baiting is a tool, a means to an end. We need to back this thing up, disintegrate the world order and restore conquered nations and peoples.
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 03:16 am No one "bludgeons" dissent by unmasking it. Rascism masked as dissent is what we are seeing in America today. Solomon's Lincoln quote is very prescient. False patriotism which in itself strives to undermine a democracy by attempting to make illegitimate an elected president is nothing short of veiled treason. Today we see a fifth column in America which holds up the constitution as it's banner while at the same time atempting to destroy the same.
| |
Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 01:14 pm
I agree with you on many points. But I would like you to elaborate on your "powerful government" point. What exactly do you mean? Which type of government comes to mind when you say "powerful government?" You see, I would consider the Parliamentary Democracy which has evolved from the UK's Constitutional Monarcy to be a "powerful government" in comparison to the US system. At the same time, I do not see it as failing. Indeed - if you will forgive me - I see it as superior to the US system simply because it has several distinct advantages. Firstly, it is simpler and more streamlined. The cuts down on costs by limiting beurocracy. Secondly, there are more viable political parties. Whereas all we hear from the US is that either the Right (Democrats) or the far Right (Republicans) will win, we have three "major" parties on the Left (Liberal Democrats), Centre-Left (Labour) and Centre-Right (Conservatives) as well as the usual smattering of smaller entities, such as the Green Party, UKIP, Monster Raving Looney Party and the likes. Thirdly, at the national level - where elections really matter - every vote is worth the same. A voter in Yorkshire holds no more power over the system than somebody from Lancashire or Cornwall. Of course, the Queen still holds "absolute power" and she could just decide to do away with democracy entirely. Not that she would... I hear she's a Monster Raving Looney Party member. Oh, and for those of you who have read all the way through to this point and now feel a sense of righteous indignation, go back and read it again, but add in a sarcastic tone from the second paragraph onwards this time. It'll make far more sense. ^_^
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 03:46 pm Neidy you said: "False patriotism which in itself strives to undermine a democracy by attempting to make illegitimate an elected president is nothing short of veiled treason." For this to be true: 1. We would have to be dealing with a democracy, we are not. Even the democratic ideals that are embraced by the American Republic are put aside because the republic has been destroyed. The people have less say in their government now than in any other time in history, even with colonial England. 2. Jimmy Carter is NOT an elected president any longer. High treason is meeting with foreign leaders without the consent of the US Government or the People. Actually it's FELONY. Carter should be in prison. 3. Since when did exercising your First Amendment right become wrong in your eyes, AND TREASON AT THAT? Is it since you decided to worship the propaganda machine or were you brainwashed out of it long before? 4. This doesn't have to be true to disarm your argument but, I would like to inform you that there are more important things going on here than the color of our skins. It is clearly an 'all about me' attitude when it is about that. You alienate yourself when it's all about the color of your skin to the point of crying wolf about racism. We would like to heal(for real) and not have the wounds driven deeper, if you don't mind. Now go click on my link up there and celebrate our differences!
| |
Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 03:53 pm
That is the quote of your life, Solomon. Hang on to it.
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 04:49 pm Thanks for the reply Solomon. Regarding your first point about people having less say. The U.S. Republic actually allows some people more say than less. I say this because of the representative division in the senate. 2 Senators for each state regardless of population gives certain groups within those states and the less populated states much more unequal representatiion, Also, since the electoral college is made up of the number of congressman and senators per state this leads to the election of presidents without the popular vote majority. We are after all a republic, not a democracy. Our real American problem is not the inability to exercise our democratic rights, but our failure as a whole to take advantage of them. Of all eligeble voters, roughly 60% actually register to vote and only anout 60% of those registered actually vote. This means about only 4 out of 10 vote. We could make laws to force everyone to vote but that in itself might interfere with the people's right to not express a preference. Concerning point #2. Jimmy Carter is a private citizen. He is exercisig his right to promote causes. There is nothing treasomous about that. We are not at war with the Palestinians. The U.S. even supplies economic aid to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Many Israelis believe there should be peaceful reconciliation with the Hamas led government, yet no one accuses them of treason. Jimmy Carter is doing nothing that undermines the legitimacy of our current or past presidents. Regarding point #3. Did I question the right to dissent in my comment? No, I question the MOTIVE behind that dissent. On the face of it, we have a president whose every action is labeled Nazism, Communist, Socialist, and every other ism or ist one can think of. His birth certificate is questioned, his religion is questioned (as if that should even matter.)These so called dissenters want their "country back",(ie. white, Christian country?) as if it only belongs to them exclusively. So they attempt to undermine legitimate elected government and strive to make an administration fail and thus damage the country in the process. That is not patriotic and thus it is a form of legitimized treason. Do I say we should take away their rights? No, of course not. But as stated in my earlier post, it should be called out for what it is. Finally, concerning point #4. Of course it isn't about skin color and shouldn't be. That is why I as a white person, chose a Black man TO BE MY PRESIDENT. It is those groups on the far right who use the color of President Obama's skin as their motivation to dissent. One only needs to look at the placards they hold up at rallies as proof. They are the ones crying wolf, and they are the ones alienating themselves from the rest of the nation.
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 06:33 pm Neidy: The Senate in which you refer is bought and paid for by Corporations at the very least. A more grim description is that of a shadow government. If former Governor Ventura isn't lying and the Republicans and Democrats aren't really opposed to each other then they don't really represent the people but only provide the illusion that they do. For this you must agree there must be dissent. That covers the first paragraph... Jimmy Carter: You say "Jimmy Carter is a private citizen. He is exercising his right to promote causes. There is nothing treasonous about that." I agree, there is nothing wrong with promoting a cause. Meeting with foreign dignitaries to promote your Neidy you say: "Regarding point #3. Did I question the right to dissent in my comment? No, I question the MOTIVE" So we need the Thought Police to determine what I was thinking? How did you get to TREASON on what I may or may not have been thinking?! The actions of the current 'puppet with strings of gold' warrant being labled "Nazism, Communist, Socialist, and every other ism" for a reason. (You also said: "So they attempt to undermine legitimate elected government") Lets not forget the special interest system
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 07:01 pm I have to add this: "Of course it isn't about skin color and shouldn't be. That is why I as a white person, chose a Black man TO BE MY PRESIDENT" This has been referred to as 'duelism'. You are saying that you voted for him based on skin color because you shouldn't vote for him based on skin color.
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 08:25 pm Hello again Solomon, You seem to contradict yourself on your points. No doubt, the Senate and House wreak of influence peddling by corporations. My point was that this is not imposed on Americans but rather allowed by essentially a somewhat lazy electorate that doesn't simply exercise their right to change things.(only about 40% of eligible voters go to the polls). As for Jimmy Carter, I'm glad you now agree that he has a right to meet foreign leaders, the fact that you disagree with his beliefs and think he should be put in jail for a felony actually puts you in the camp of the "thought Police". Speaking of number three, dissent /treason. Again I re-state that they have a right to their opinions and a right to dissent, However, when that dissent itself calls for rebellion or tries to make illegitimate a fair and honest election where the majority voted for a new direction, and does it through false innuendo and out right lies, then the basic patriotism of people promoting such discontent has to be questioned. Something I have a riht to do. To paraphrase a famous quote. "I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THEY PROMOTE,BUT WILL GO TO MY DEATH TO DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO PROMOTE IT. Will current right wingers do the same for me? Finally, who said I voted for President Obama because he is black? Anyone reading my post clearly would understand that I voted for him because I felt he was the better candidate. I chose him based on "the content of his character, not the color of his skin." Unfortunately, you are guilty of the typical right wing attempt to misrepresent someones view, assume the misrepresentation as fact, and then rationalize a differing view based on the misrepresentation. A typical right wing tactic.Finally, you can't be a Nazi, Communist, Socialist all at the same time. You got to pick one.
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 08:57 pm Sorry Solomon, I was working on corps for my brother in law who plays the game and posted off his game site by mistake(Winston Churchill). That is my post, not his. Didn't want you to get confused. This disussion is so interesting, I actually forgot to go to my own page!
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 09:21 pm hmm wow, you really aren't very good at this are you? 1. You fail to present how I contradict my point, only say that I do. (liberal tactic) 2. You say your point is something other than what it really was. (another liberal tactic- like it won't be noticed) 3. It is clear that I still don't agree with you on Jimmy Carter yet you claim that I do. (yet ANOTHER liberal tactic) 4. I become the 'Thought Police' by opposing other views? How ridiculous! Again, if there is a law broken then there is a crime committed.(not a difficult concept) That has nothing to do with whether or not I oppose his political views. 5. With this, I have to question what planet you're on: "tries to make illegitimate a fair and honest election" 6. "discontent has to be questioned. Something I have a right to do." We are in absolute agreement on that one. 7. You said: "Finally, who said I voted for President Obama because he is black? Anyone reading my post clearly would understand that I voted for him because I felt he was the better candidate. I chose him based on "the content of his character, not the color of his skin." I ask you... is that what the following means, am I to clearly understand what you say above by what you say below? "Of course it isn't about skin color and shouldn't be. That is why I as a white person, chose a Black man TO BE MY PRESIDENT." 8. You said: "you are guilty of the typical right wing attempt to misrepresent someones view" My response is: You are the one claiming to be talking about something different than what you were actually talking about. If you made an error on your subject how can you blame me for responding to your error? Every instance I demonstrate here is an example of tactics used by the political left wing, yet you claim I am guilty of what you are doing! (which is of course a left wing liberal tactic LOL!) Pathetic liberal tactics aren't going to work on me. LOL!
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 10:28 pm SOLOMON GRUNDY SMASH LEFT WING LIBERAL TACTICS!! GRRRRRRRR!! I don't mean this to be so adversarial. For the record I'm not a right winger. Though I am a FORMER conservative republican. Realizing that I had run into the arms of a wolf in sheep's clothing I no longer consider myself right wing, conservative, or republican. I ran into the arms of a fake sheep, what really bothers me is that you readily ran into the arms of the wolf without the sheep's clothing, that troubles me.
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 11:08 pm "That is not patriotic and thus it is a form of legitimized treason." I thought I was, along with Jimmy, the only American willing to confront the (OBVIOUS) truth. Well said. Glenn Beck should be arrested, along with the clown known as Rush Limbaugh
| |
Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 11:23 pm
Funny you say that. Because I understood what he originally meant. He didn't vote for him because he was black. Unlike the right wing, he voted for him despite him being black. The misunderstanding appears to be on your part, Solomon.
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 11:30 pm Eh, could be... Are you Gene Dixon in real life? lol No matter, history will prove me right. 
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 11:39 pm Oh NO! YOU DIDN'T! What exactly do you mean by: "he voted for him despite him being black." Would you like to explain yourself on that one? _______________________________________________ Here, let me help you: * Main Entry: 1 despite * Function: noun 1 : the feeling or attitude of despising : contempt 2 : malice, spite 3 : an act showing contempt or defiance
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 11:44 pm Well this is a point by point discussion so I will stay on that path. You contradict yourself in that you say that my position calls for "thought police". At the same time you continue to state that Jimmy Carter should be put in jail for meeting heads of state as a private citizen and speaking his mind on foreign policy issues. There is nothing illegal in that.You are the one saying people should be put in jail not me. 2. As for #2, I'll dismiss it and let anyone who bothers to read our post decide whether I am contradicting myself. I obviously am not. #3 and 4 are already adressed so I move to #5. On #5 I speak as earlier mentioned about the out right lies perpetrated on the right to make President Obama seem to be an illegitimate President. "Wasn't born here", a secret Muslim, "Nazi", "Communist", wants to kill old people with death panels,"hates white people" (Glenn Beck), etc...Who comes up with this stuff? Where are there any facts to back it up. Here are some fact based statements about the Bush Administration, Illegally tortured(Dick Cheney admitted to this.) Illegal wire tapping of all electronic communications in the U.S.(admitted by none other that George Bush himself). Started Iraq war based on lies,something so well documented I won't try to list credits. We agree on #6. Thank goodness. #7 There is no contradiction, I voted for a Black man for President. It is a statement of fact. I voted for him because I felt he would be the better candidate. In the primaries I voted for Hillary Clinton against him. I did not vote against John McCain because he is white. In fact I have tremendous respect for him. #8. Solomon, I honstly don't think you get it. You call me a "pathetic liberal." I voted Republican from 1984 to 1994. At that point I sensed something seriously wrong with the party and switched to the Democratic party. You fail to realize that the motive beind the current conservative dissent is what bothers me, not the dissent itself. Why is the decision by the majority of the American people to move the country a little left of center such a scary prospect? Why is there such a need to question Obama's citizenship so as to say he has no right to be president? How can a president who is trying to obtain health care access to all Americans be labelled an as a person who favors death panels? Why is his religion questioned? Shouldn't a persons religion not matter in the first place? You haven't given me your opinion on these specific issues. Do you believe all the things said about Obama? If you do, tell me why. If you don't tell me why. I honestly am not sure of your political leanings. Your Lincoln quote is one I totally agree with. Corporations are all too powerful. The so called corporate rights which the supreme court supposedly bestowed to them in the late 19th century is ridiculous. Also I agree with your statement that "race baiting is a tool,a means to an end. To what end? Or in other words, what is the MOTIVE?
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 11:54 pm I got bigger fish to fry Neidy lol
| |
| Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 11:56 pm Well as I was writing my response to your last 8 points you posted your political leanings. "For the Record", you say you are no longer a conservative Republican. Unfortunately, you still sound like one.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 12:05 am "Do you believe all the things said about Obama? If you do, tell me why. If you don't tell me why." This contains many of the reasons Neidy
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 12:07 am All these posts cropped up fast. LOL, I did say "despite" lolol. Of course I was saying I voted for him regardless of race. I got to quit swigging beers when I am on this forum. So your will not answer my questions regarding the crazy accusations against Obama. It is realy a simple yes or no. Do you believe these things about him or not? Yes or no? A non answer only undermines your entire argument.
| |
Monday, September 21, 2009 - 12:44 am
See, that's the tactics of the right; taking something legitimate and twisting it into something nasty by competely ignoring context. As long as it serves your argument, right? "Despite" was used as a preposition in that sentence, not a noun. Your definition is horribly flawed. "He didn't vote for him because he was black. Unlike the right wing, he voted for him despite him being black." despite preposition, noun, verb. -preposition 1. in spite of; notwithstanding. -noun 2. contemptuous treatment; insult. 3. malice, hatred, or spite. -verb (used with object) 4. Obsolete. to anger or annoy (someone) out of spite. -Idiom 5. in despite of, in spite of; notwithstanding: He was tolerant in despite of his background and education.
Looks like Neidy got it right after all, Solomon. You've just completely undermined your own position. lol "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." ~ Sir Winston Churchill
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 01:56 am You said what you said, and I asked you to clarify the offensive statement you made. If you don't mean what you say go ahead and clarify it. Don't blame it on my 'right wing tactics' lmao! Either master the language a little better or tolerate being called on using offensive statements when you don't realize that you're doing it.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 02:11 am Litas, you say: "Despite" was used as a preposition in that sentence, not a noun. Your definition is horribly flawed." (thinking we won't look it up- liberal tactic lol) Merriam Webster is an acceptable autorhity and no 'notwithstanding' * Main Entry: despite * Function: preposition * Date: 15th century : in spite of Is it that horribly flawed? So, it is to say: "he voted for him in spite of him being black"??? I don't get what you're saying, please show me where you could be saying a good thing here. If you didn't mean it, cool, just clarify.(which you kind of tried... I guess lol) It's more duelism anyway, if you look up 'notwithstanding' it says "despite" (it's probably better to let Neidy speak for himself lol)
I think that covers it perfectly.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 03:53 am hahahaha. Solomon, I've seen that video already. hahaha. I can't believe you fall for all that crap. DESPITE that video, I think I'll consider you my favorite right winger. Someday I might bring you back to Earth. That video goes into the dust bin of video farce history along with "The Clinton Chronicles". That's what you use to back up your arguments? Lets see, I already have 2 labels bestowed upon me by you, "pathetic liberal" and a follower of "duelism" which I guess makes me a 'Duelist'. Which label to choose? I choose duelist. Neidy the duelist. duelist, noun. "one who fights, or is an expert at fighting, duels" WEBSTERS DICTIONARY Solomon, you can't be a pathetic liberal and a duelist all at once. You got to pick one.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 04:03 am Thanks Latias for your moral support.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 04:36 am Head in the sand works better for some people. Oh and that's immoral support, don't forget you guys are the ones that run to the wolves, the wolves that believe it's okay to harvest the brains from babies and leave them for dead if they survive an abortion. Surly you don't think I'm shocked that your thinking is all f**ked up!
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 05:32 am you want to talk "black", gentlemen? Fact: Roughly 75% of planned parenthood clinics are in black or other minority neighborhoods. Fact: The black population endures 37% of the abortions in America. Fact: The black population is about 14% of the US population. Do your own math! Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood In Her Own Words:
This is what you support? <-click Bringing out the big guns for you liberal folk! (might as well understand what you're doing)
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 05:46 am I hope you're watching these (and no they're not gruesome dead baby pictures)
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 06:23 am I can hardly be held accountable for the holes in your knowledge, Solomon. If you're not aware of all the meanings of a word, that is your malfunction. You choose to deliberated take the negative meaning rather than the literal one in which it was meant. And there is the flaw in your tactic. Whilst we argue the point, you will argue the semantics. C'est la vie.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 06:35 am I chose to deliberately take the negative meaning rather than the literal one, I concede. Now... Argue what I just posted... or is it time for more head in the sand action as liberals, believing by hiding you aren't responsible for what you support? Truth's hitting the table boys.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 01:12 pm We've been deceived gentlemen. This brings us to a crossroad. Which way do we want to go? Left? We can go the way of denial and pretend like we were never enlightened to this information and continue to support liberalism with it's hidden agenda of genocide against our brothers all the time telling people that we aren't racist denying it to the point of driving it deep into our own minds so it doesn't pierce our conscience any longer. Or-Right? We can choose to become right wing and conservative but in reality this is just leads to a deeper pit of denial than the first path because the evil men who run this movement are after the same exact agenda only they lie and deceive people into thinking they are the way out of the murderous evil. Or-Forward? We can fervently help these evil men continue and even expand their murder by engaging in a Stalinist, Maoist, Hitlerish cult of personality movement that in reality promotes the same things as the men I chose to use to describe the movement. Or-Back? We can turn around. Learn what we stand for. Go back to the last intersection because we realize that we should have made that left turn at Albuquerque. Recognize that we've been down the eugenic road before and we know where it leads. Decide to take personal responsibility for our own views and beliefs. Oppose that which we KNOW to be evil regardless of the desire to put ourselves first.(political promises are an illusion anyway) Listen to the men who oppose(d) this evil and learn what's really going on, it's our duty. By taking this path we must go back, and that involves looking at the ugliness along the road that got us where we are.
| |
Monday, September 21, 2009 - 02:33 pm
What you posted has little bearing upon the points already made. You willingly acknowledge that you deliberately misrepresented what was said, which links precisely into the point I was making. And now you are basing your arguments upon the counterpoint to comments which you acknowledge were taken out of context. You are now entirely off topic, and your "arguments" do not relate in any way whatsoever to what has been said. Anyway, I know how the following rebuttals will unfold. When one cannot attack the argument, attack the person, correct? That's the way it has been played so far. As for the rest - the typical rhetoric of paranoia.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 03:48 pm That excuses you from your responsibility of what you choose to support?
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 04:18 pm You don't know what I support. That is exactly the point. All I've done is elaborate upon a point made my Neidy, and extrapolated further from a position which you failed to comprehend. If you cannot grasp simple contextual semantics then a debate with you will be entirely fruitless.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 04:20 pm Sure I do, You're a liberal and you refuse to even acknowledge the murderous racism I've pointed out. I think it's pretty clear.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 04:20 pm I'm willing to speak out against murderous racists. I'm just wondering why the pussy liberals refuse to. Going to take it to the grave aren't they? I'm just glad there are people observing who haven't gone mad and are getting the message here. Liberals, man up, you support it, you own it. Now how about turning from it?!
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 04:24 pm I don't subscribe to your polarised world view. Things are not so black and white. You are all insults, Solomon, and no real substance. Either way, my point stands.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 04:57 pm [solomon takes Latias to see the Psychiatrist to see if it will help]
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 06:22 pm America's social problems are not my own. I'm happy knowing that the extreme right is less of a problem in my own country than it is in the US. Latias takes Solomon to the only place she thinks will do him any good.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 07:31 pm lol
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 07:50 pm Unfortunately America's social problems are your own. Unless of course you're missing the whole concept of 'global government'. LOL what integrity you display! The right is the problem? as to mean 'solomon'? rather than the murderous racists? Yeah, half the world is crazy and you're in the crazy camp for sure!
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 08:21 pm I'll rephrase then; your personal paranoia is not my concern. You project it upon me simply because you don't know how to effectively deal with it. So you rant and you rave in self-righteous rhetoric in the hopes of appearing smarter and more "knowledgable" than anybody else. Besides, the right wing are usually the murderous racists. BNP. KKK. Nazis. Despots and dictators. The list goes on.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 09:24 pm I'm warning you... but hey, it's YOUR defense mechanism.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 09:42 pm Better than the paranoid alternative.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 10:39 pm Since I've recognized that your only goal here is to frustrate the thread I've decided you and I are finished conversing.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 11:07 pm That's awfully big of you. But the meaningful conversation ended when you acknowledged your deliberate misrepresentation. The rest has been thoroughly amusing. Keep up the good work.
| |
| Monday, September 21, 2009 - 11:35 pm actually you, out of ignorance, used the wrong word and I took advantage of your ignorance. Just for the record, read it for yourself. **Warning graphic link 18+ please** If this continues though, I fear I may go off the deep end!
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 12:35 am Yeah, I can't bend on this: Jimmy Carter is wrong. People are not protesting because Obama is black. He's crazy, he says The overwhelming majority are in the tea parties because of racism. Could it possibly have anything to do with things like the things I've been posting? Dividing the American people is counter productive and not done by accident.
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 01:49 am I've now concluded that Solomon, may like the racism that is charactherized as dissent in our country. I am sure to be right. Right, Solomon
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 02:06 am These are not the droids you are looking for.
| |
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 04:33 am
Don't forget Stalin and Mao, those right wing lunatics!
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 04:56 am Solomon. I left the debate because you are clearly are off topic. When one is losing the argument, one goes off topic. However, I can't help but reply to your posts regarding Margaret Sanger. I have read and heard a little bit about her and from what I recall there is some merit in what you say concerning her views. I don't know about the quotes you give since you don't put them in context so I won't offer an opinion. However the entire issue is mute. She died I think in the 1950's and nothing she may have said in the early 20th century is relevant to todays debate about abortion. You once again are guilty of painting a broad brush on people and assume they believe in certain things. I in fact, am against abortion. However, I believe in our constitution. That constitution established a supreme court to interpret our laws. The supreme Court ruled that abortion is a legal right woman have. Follow up tests of that ruling have failed to overturn the original Roe Vs. Wade decision over the past 37 years, thus making it established law. I don't like it. But that is the way it is. The same constitution offers the remedy of amending it. I support an amendment outlawing abortion except in certain circumstances. However, I would only support it if required that any child born to a mother who does not want the baby be completely supported by the state and given at lease a middle class type upbringing. If we are going to force woman to have babies out of our sense of moral supremacy, then we as a society should put or shut up. And please don't give me the crap about responsible behavior, People are people and will at times make mistakes or act recklessly. A newborn child should not have to be brought up by parents who if given a "choice" would abort it. If we as society "choose" to force birth giving, then we have become the defacto step parent. Solomon, you oversimplify issues. You are, if I may now offer a label , an absolutist. Your belief system is obviously theocratically based.When your verdict on an issue is threatened by a few inconvenient facts, you retreat to the tactics of taking quotes and facts out of context to preserve your absolute conclusion. Why? Because your conclusions are 'absolute' and therefore any deceptive technique that can be used to defend that absolute is justified. Take for instance your statistic concerning the abortion rate among African Americans. It is a true and correct statistic. Did you offer your statistic because of your concern for African Americans?No, it is there merely to support your outlandish belief that Planned Parenthood is secretly trying to eliminate the African American race through Eugenics! But actually you don't believe that either. Your true concern about abortion actually falls in line with the undeniable fact that you are afraid too many white people aren't being born and eventually whites may no longer hold majority status in the nation. A major tenet of the white supremacist movement is that we gotta have more white children! Now, the real reason for a higher incidence of abortions in the African American community. There is a pattern to abortions. It doesn't run along racial lines, but it does run along the line of economic status. The lower ones income level, the more difficult it becomes to maintain a larger family. Even one child may be one too many to afford.The higher incidence of abortion among low income families is true for all racial groups, withour exception. However, since African Americans in general have a much lower standard of living, a double the national average unemployment rate and earn less that than white counterparts,coupled with the unfortunate reality of much higher births out of wedlock, ( a problem acknowledged by African Americans in general)obviously would mean that they would have a higher incidence of abortions. Again, you took a statistic and put it completely out of context. The good new is that abortions among blacks, and other groups in general have dropped significantly in the past 15 years, mainly due to increase sex education and use of condoms.
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 11:47 am Cut the shit! You deliberately tried to frustrate an otherwise productive topic and NOW you claim to be anti-abortion? You absolutely refused to condemn the practice of aiming abortion at a certain race in order to control their population, you now call it only theory. NOW you claim you're pro-life? Maybe you can answer how murdering people because of the color of their skin is off of the topic of racism too. You are deceptive and it appears that you have a lack of value for truth. This is clear to anyone reading through the posts. You claim the eugenic beliefs of the powerful people of only one generation back are irrelevant. I recommend finding a good federation so you can get help removing your head from your butt! lol
After the evidence you saw... I need to ask you, are you okay in the head? You saw the evidence for yourself. You heard from black victims of forced sterilization and saw the racial demographics on abortion. Does denying the truth and then arguing for lies help? Oh that's right, those black people are only paranoid when they look at the fact that HALF of the black population is missing. You don't want to believe anything other than what you display, why are you responding? Oh I know, to frustrate the message. You are what they call a "Bullshitter" and people spot it right away, you're not hiding it from anybody. Now go ahead, take your childish final word, make it an good over-worded long one... ...because I'm done with you.
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 04:01 pm This thread is getting awfully hard to follow, esp when one reads it late at night. Text walls proving......what? That the US is full of murderous raceists, usually white & right wing. That there are evil sterilisation programs in place to wipe out the "black"? race in the US. Well, it hasent been very successful at all has it. Makes me suspect it is all B/S exaggerated & distorted for political ends. If you are looking for murderous raceists how about looking at either Rwanda ot The Sudan for starters. In fact this whole thread is irritating - how about Alien abductions instead, equally as fanciful & less nasty
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 05:19 pm I agree that the abuse of the race card is a political stunt that will cause further division in a country where recent elections SHOULD have done a lot of good.
| |
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 06:33 pm
Solomon, Solomon, Solomon... You miss the point like an Irish sniper on St Patrick's day. I had hoped that it wouldn't come to this, but it seems like it cannot be avoided. For your benefit - and my own amusement - here is a brief lesson in English. Language is a beautiful thing - quite possibly the greatest achievement of mankind as a species. It allows one to communicate abstract concepts in a generally meaningful way, provided, of course, that it is wielded with sufficient articulatory skill. Now English, like most human languages, affords one the ability to exchange and impart knowledge based upon a common, shared set of conceptual alphanumeric characters commonly referred to as letters. These letters can be arranged into a wide variety of idiomatic forms which, individually or combined, allow one to articulate a concept, thought or shared supposition. These "forms" are commonly referred to as words, which form the lexis of any given language - in this case, English. Now the purpose of words is to act as a functional carrier of meaning, acting through an assumed shared common association, the nature of which links in quite strongly to the aforementioned articulation. The nature of this meaning held by words is better known as semantics. In terms of expressing conceptual devices through a common lexical function, one must assume an affirmed semantic commonality between any persons wishing to express a given concept and those who are to be informed. The very mechanism of which can prove quite cumbersome when one takes into account the multi-faceted nature of any singular lexical device, in this case the varying multiplex of semantic definition offered to each individual word. In order to ensure that such troublesome occurrences are not overly common, many languages then rely upon the formation of patterns within word formation, such as inflection, derivation and composition - or morphology, as it is better known - and the patterns of formation within the sentence structure itself - the syntax. In combination, these are part of a larger group of functions which aid in ensuring a common semantic framework which is more commonly known as grammar. This framework, rather conveniently, assigns almost all alphanumerical forms and entities a lexical category which help to define meaning. These include, but are not limited to: Nominals (nouns and pronouns), Adjectives, Verbs, Pronouns, Prepositions. Now, to apply this to a "case-study" in order to render an example of confused semantic meaning we will require an appropriate phrase and all of its definitions. Rather conveniently, we have the following sentence:
And the subsequent misrepresentation of the word "despite" therein. As this example sentence has been disastrously truncated in order to remove the primary context, and thus deprive it of any subsequent contextual framework, we must take it at face value. Luckily for us, this does not alter the original meaning significantly at all, and in applying known grammatical constructs one is able to quite easily decipher a meaning. Turning back to the criticism offered regarding the above quoted statement, which referenced the usage of the lexical entity "despite" as a cause for contention, we must primarily break down the offered definition of "despite" and then proceed to redefine the word from the implied semantic nature offered in the criticism, and return it to the original context-oriented form as given prior to the truncation. First, the criticism attempted to narrow the meaning of the word "despise" by falsely categorising it as a noun within the above context;
It is important to note, at this time, the precise nature of a noun. Nouns, and the similar construct known as pronouns, are part of a group known more widely as nominals. Nominals are referential in nature, in the sense that they are typically indicative of an observable entity or concept within the real world - in the case of the above offered definition, an emotion. Deconstructing the sentence,
we find a single noun (black) and some recursive pronouns (he, him). In this case the offered definition of "despite" in the form of a noun expressing an emotive state would render the sentence meaningless within its original, untruncated context by simple virtue of a more clear semantic intent. Indeed, the purpose is far better served by the logical assumption that "despite" in this case is in fact a preposition - or a lexical form indicative of a relationship between a noun/pronoun and another function, sometimes acting as a grammatical modifier thereof. In this case, the preposition is an indication of a relationship between two pronouns, altering effective definition of the form "despite" and as such redefining the implied shared semantic derivation of the entire concept,
In this case, we see the prepositional form taking the definition of "in spite of," further referenced with an example of "Notwithstanding." By supplanting "notwithstanding" for "despite" we retain the following observed meaning:
Feeding these definitions back into the original example, we can thus entertain possible alternatives for the truncated sentence which retains a similar functional semantic nature. "...he voted for him despite him being black." Alternatively, "...he voted for him in spite of the fact that he was black." "...he voted for him regardless of the fact that he was black." "...he voted for him without taking into account that he was black." Or, of a completely different form but with the same conceptual functionality, "...the fact that he was black did not factor into his decision to vote for him." So, ultimately, the original semantic intent of the sentence was retained effectively within the grammatical construct of the lexical concatenation itself. Rather, the fallacious conclusions, as drawn within the body of the critique, stems from the original erroneous constraints placed upon it by the miscategorisation of the form "despite" as a noun rather than a preposition, and the ensuing dispersion of shared conceptual devices became inevitable. As a result of this an erroneous semantic structure was given to the form "despise" and the example "case study" sentence by direct extension. But you were right about one thing, Solomon; this conversation will bear no further fruit. So I bid you farewell, and leave you to it.
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 10:25 pm Wow you did make it a good one. I doubt that I will be able to refrain from responding. lol Latias, I'm going to read it now... first though (and I'll probably be sorry for saying this first lol but) I wanted you to know that hard-lining you like I have isn't my intention. You seem like a nice person and I'm sure in other forums we could have a lot of fun. I truly hope I haven't offended you by saying things like "crazy camp", "I'm done with you" etc. If I have please accept a heart felt apology, I'm sorry. Ok, now to go read what you had to say...
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 10:49 pm OMG you go into a long English lesson and you're still wrong. You misused the word because you didn't mean to say "he voted for him despite him being black". As in "I lent him money despite him being a theif" or "I went swimming despite the fact that I had no suit". When would you ever say "I went swimming despite my bathing suit" and mean that your bathing suit is perfect and ready to go? It means the opposite. That sentence tells anyone reading it there is some kind of issue with the bathing suit. You and I both know what that means and that you didn't mean it as it reads. The fact that I, by accident, copy and pasted the NOUN version of the definition from Merriam Webster with out first taking it's part of speech into consideration is my mistake but really has no bearing as it is the same as the preposition definition. Like I said, when I look up 'notwithstanding' the definition is "despite" LOL! (here is a good example why you would need the thought police again. You judged my intent and claimed I did it to mislead when in fact I simply copy & pasted with out considering it's part of speech) You used the wrong word and are still kicking and screaming trying to make it the right word yet the definition STILL doesn't match the communication you meant to get across so, yes it is still wrong. Moving on... OH, It's ALL about that hehe cool, in that case I won't even need to respond, forget I said anything lol
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 11:16 pm You know BC, on a lot of levels this election is doing a lot of good. Not as much as it is going to harm, from the top down, but between us little people? I think getting issues on the table is very helpful. I just can't believe so many people seem to be okay with that evil bitch Margaret Sanger. ...can't figure that one out.
| |
| Tuesday, September 22, 2009 - 11:36 pm This is a human problem. This is a superhuman answer.
| |
| Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 03:41 am Walk a mile in your neighbor's shoes.
| |
| Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 05:03 am OMG. Nowhere in my post do I say I support eugenics. I just don't buy the crap that eugenics is the reason for the abortion problem in the country.I offer the real reason. READ THE POST! DUMMY.You contradict your own argument so much that it is laughable. To paraphrase Solomon, 'Neidy doesn't condemn eugenics because she really wants all black people to die, and umm... umm, that's why she voted for a black man for president!! Yeah that's right!! and...ummm...and... uh, in spite of her despite... >Good bye Solomon.
| |
| Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 05:25 am Is that what you get? I question your sanity.
| |
| Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 05:30 am You can't stop the healing Yes I dared to question motives. Neidy, After rereading your first post I hope you don't rejoin the discussion to be honest:
YOU ARE ONE OF THE WORST KINDS OF RACISTS!! And I stand behind that. Calling 'dissent' racism, outrageous! I hope you're not American. You don't even know what you're saying. Disagreeing with the government is racism? and claiming those who want to save the Republic are actually those out to destroy it? If you think you're going to pull a "I didn't say that" stunt it isn't flying either. I'm cutting you off at the pass this time, if you have that bad of a command of the English language that you can say that and not mean it... then get the hell out of here, you should be in 3rd grade. LET THE EVIDENCE STAND! Everyone can clearly see for themselves which is the light and which is the absence thereof, I need not go on.
| |
| Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 06:16 pm I've got my money on the one pointing the finger and yelling, as more likely to be racist. Stop this kind of talk Solomon, it is highly offensive. No one is a racist here.
| |
| Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 06:40 pm I'd like to think he is illustrating the absurdity and political BS of labeling people racists simply because they do not agree with another person.
| |
| Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 10:39 pm How are you so sure that nobody here is racist Nanna? I understand taking that position by default, it's fair, but here we have people speaking what they believe. I think it is more accurate to say, Nanna doesn't like to hear people call others racist. I don't either and I don't use the term lightly. I will not justify it even though I easily can even to the point of standing behind it long term. I am with you though, I would like things to tone down a bit and thus far I will admit I haven't gone out of my way to keep things chill. I think you recognize the nature of the discussion though. It is among one of the most heated topics that can be discussed. We as a people have a long way to go but at least we're moving forward even if we're on our bellies clawing at the ground to do it.
| |
| Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 11:00 pm (Why does Solomon ALWAYS double post? Sheesh) We are, in all likelihood, about ready to wrap this discussion up. If it's going to be real healing then it should be real.
| |
Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 03:59 am
Jimmy Carter! I always suspected he was a racist. Good cover, accusing everyone else in the country of being racists.
| |
| Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 05:23 am LoL, ?Jimmy?, he's no racist. . . Solomon, I'm not lookinf to point the finger, or call you out, sorry if it appears that way. ?I've been called racist by a player I once had a personal disagreement with. We have since wrapped that nonsense up. I admit at the time that it was one of the most hurtful accusations brought against me. This being even more ironic because my husband is a (minority?) of two races, Hispanic and African American. He was also disturbed when I showed him some of the things written on the forum about me. I am now at peace with this individual, and that individual has been a vital part of my development as a simC player. I am glad we are on good terms. That whole fiasco had alot of players upset on both sides. I'd like to see that scenario avoided, if possible. It won't be that fun once it gets serious. It is easy to hurt someone, but near impossible to heal the wounds you cause. Calling someone racist is not necessary here, (though) it is the topic of this thread. If we are going to get personal about all this though, I suggest we all just start thrwing decs and keep it in game than have this BS going on. Just my opinion, any takers?
| |
| Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 11:45 am Hmm, I see a slap in the face of people who REALLY do experience REAL racism. Using it for your own political gain is deplorable and I will never stop believing this. Giving it to a government to control it's own people is damnable. Yet I still agree with you. The chance of anything changing in a positive way because any of it is remote. Yeah, I'm fully aware that this has probably caused 'cold war' in game, I don't mind, I have no problem treating it like having a "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" of my very own! Got to admit, the roll play would prove to be a bit interesting. lol A problem I see is that even though someone may not be racist, they will refuse to reject racism because of their own pride with whom they may be discussing it with. Would it be so hard to say?- "if what you say about Margaret Sanger is true then that's horrible, but I question your information, I need more facts before I just jump on your band wagon". Why is it easier to construct false arguments, deliberately confuse, deliberately frustrate and attack rather than deal with the actual issues? I believe it's a way to hide from the truth being presented. I also believe the best way to avoid it is not to wrap yourself up in it instead of attacking those who may or may not have provoked a negative emotional reaction by exposing certain behaviors. Why would we ever do this if we ourselves believed our argument honestly had merit? In no way is this an argument against anyone. This is in general. This represents so many people on the net that if any must take it personally, then just form one line here. Finally one more problem, and that is Solomon's lack of sensitivity to other people's resistance to change and recognizing that even if HE thinks they are wrong they have the right as a human being to stay exactly the way they are if they so choose. Unless of course they are hurting others.
| |
| Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 01:20 pm I will take a bet that if people look into their hearts honestly, they will find that they are probably racist to a greater or lesser extent. Of course it all comes down to how one really defines racist. And obviously only Caucasians are racists it would appear - no way Black or Hispanic people could possibly be There is a lot of posturing and point scoring in this thread I think
| |
| Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 03:44 pm I'm just wondering who is willing to back their BS up with action. Without question, I am. What bothers me is that while this subject may be worthwhile, it is made up of disgustinng content. Making a point "in general" is cool and whatnot. But to turn it into a personal insult, because someone will not "say it for you", "right now" is crap. It doesn't belong here. In game insults are totally welcome in my book. I'm not scoring points yet, nor am I looking to. But in common with simC tradition, I will continue to play "as the forums turn" to the best of my ability. Now again, who wants nukes up their arses? LMAO
| |
| Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 03:45 pm Now we are actually getting somewhere. What is the point of these nonsensical newsflashes?
| |
| Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 04:41 pm Helloa Kali. I think you mean racialist don't you?. I hope you do anyways. Racist: Hostile or oppressive behaviour towards people because they belong to a different race. Racialist: The belief that some races are innately superior to others because of hereditary characteristics.
| |
| Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 11:42 pm Leave real life outside of the forum and play the silly game....Or I will return and smite everyone in this thread and rename their countries something humiliating. Buy, buy buy! Sam needs to cash out you bastards~! /me shakes fist at room.
| |
| Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 11:49 pm It's funny you should go there Nanna... I was thinking at work today how you tend to hold me to a higher standard than others. I mean, REALLY thinking about it, as I tend to do. Now, you may be going into the denial phase already(lol) but hold on! You do, and I've realized that you are not wrong about it. (don't make me prove it, this isn't an accusation) My own integrity tells me: "But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." See? since I knew more, been given more, more was required of me. This is why I am wrong and this is the truth. (someone should have said "where's the love brother?!") I should be farther along than I am. I know the love that is displayed in the last link I posted yet it hasn't been exercised, this is my short coming. I know the attack tactics of the 'philosophically guarded', they should have been expected and my responses should have been different. (I don't know why y'all won't watch the videos, you missed the grand dragon of the KKK loving his neighbor of color as himself) Honestly, I find most of what you say without merit and probably a defense for friends, only you really know. I don't believe anybody should have a problem condemning the actions of Adolf Hitler for example and if I'm in a discussion about race, yes, that becomes important. And refusing to do so... well, do I need to go on? what does it speak to you? ...and if it's not speaking what I think it is(should) couple that with a denial that Nazis were behind concentration camps and that it's just YOUR paranoia. If someone murders call him a murderer. If someone repeatedly steals call him a theif. If someone refuses to acknowledge that murder is wrong that says something about their views on murder and murderers. If someone refuses to acknowledge that stealing is wrong that says something about their views on stealing and theives. The worse the crime gets the easier it should be to condemn... unless you're asking Charles Manson to condemn brainwashing with LSD. (this isn't only clear to me? right?) It's as I told you, I am willing to stand behind what I said. Do I think I'm actually dealing with a full blown racist here? NO, I just think some folks are too prideful to do the right thing even when they already know it's right. I mean, I commented on an obvious racial abuse. I'm not going to go around claiming anyone is racist but I also don't see anyone interested in clearing the matter up either. Will I take it back? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. It's a racist view. If the author stands behind it, then of course not. You know...? I swear, I really wish people would watch the videos, I come home to posts with the definition of racism in it. If they got watched we would realize that there are HUNDREDS of definitions on racism and it can be made into anything you want it to be. Hence I will always bitterly oppose this idea that state descent is racism and I don't believe I need to stress the word bitterly.
| |
| Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 11:52 pm ok... everyone suspend your love until the weapons market recovers! THIS IS AN EMERGENCY!! LOL sam this game is real life, it's a real life game with real life people in my real life computer (he was typing while I was typing... I HAD to post twice!)
| |
| Friday, September 25, 2009 - 01:11 am Thats funny Sam. Especially as YOU started a thread about freedom of speach in RL about 10 months ago.
| |
| Friday, September 25, 2009 - 01:46 am Freedom of speech is essential - it is a responsibility as well as a right. Dosent have to mean say whatever you want to say. And nix, petty point you made there don't you think? Racist/Racialist - they seem to be used interchangeably, and tell me honestly - have you ever heard anyone use the term Racialist? I cant recall ever hearing it. If I did I probably dismissed it as an uttering of some random pretentious wanker
| |
| Friday, September 25, 2009 - 11:46 am From a world of reign they come... In a world of mammon we have found it all! Fighting for pride and for gold. But the key to the reign, to the ultimate control: wisdom of the old. We have been elect to drain the wine of Gnosis to hide it and pray. Got to save our children from the beast. We are on the way. Remaining in darkness the land of salvation will drown. And when we'll have vanished slavery will take your freedom down. Seven eyes to be blind forever in time: Sign of the cross... Hell arise! Castigation under the sign, sign of the cross make us drown in altar wine
| |
| Friday, September 25, 2009 - 11:46 am Ahmen. Kali. I was talking to Sam. And No. I don't think it was a petty point to bring up the difference between a Racist (which you seem to have everyone down as) and a Racialist. You said: "I will take a bet that if people look into their hearts honestly, they will find that they are probably racist to a greater or lesser extent." BULL. Maybe they are Racialist, but not Racist. Anyone one can think they are better than another, but to oppress some one because you think you are better than them is wrong. The term Racialist should be used more often as I would say most people are Racialist. Only a few pussies out there are Racist. KALI...................GO ON!!!!!!!!!! CALL ME A PRETENTIOUS WANKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| |
| Friday, September 25, 2009 - 12:49 pm Looking at these post makes me come to the conclusion that there's 3 types of people is this world "those that lead", "those that follow", "and the black sheep" example let's say the leader walks off a steep cliff to his doom the others will follow but, the black sheep seeing this will go the other way alone. For "broad is the way and wide is the gate to destruction" and "Narrow is the path and small is the gate to salvation" amen
| |
| Friday, September 25, 2009 - 05:43 pm actually I was talking to Solomon Grundy nix But now you mention it. Have you ever heard anybody use the term racialist? Just because you think people should use that term more often dosent mean its going to happen does it. However, I took the time to check WordReference.com English Dictionary - and guess what, terms are used interchangeably. and what is this I see; capitals and lots of ..... and !!!!!!! Gosh nix I dont have to call you a wanker, I dont need to
| |
| Friday, September 25, 2009 - 11:25 pm You know Kali I almost left a comment about that too: Do I remember correctly...? ah yes, I agree, freedom of speech is not absolute. For example, yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater when there is no fire is a crime. Inciting a riot is a crime also. (at least where I come from)
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 01:19 am Well I agree Solomon Grundy, was what I said about freedom of speech being a responsibility as well as a right. Goes hand in hand with people being responsible for their own actions.
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 03:53 am I'm a wee bit pissed Kali. So why say Nix? Anyway, the terms are not used interchangeable. One means one thing and the other another. Your a self confessed Racist. I eat people like you for breakfast. The last one I came across........well lets just say it was a proper Job. Please tell me your a male.
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 07:20 am To Neidy: Re: Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 08:57 pm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry Solomon, I was working on corps for my brother in law who plays the game and posted off his game site by mistake(Winston Churchill). That is my post, not his. Didn't want you to get confused. This disussion is so interesting, I actually forgot to go to my own page! My reply: I ALWAYS KNEW YOU WERE A MULTI! ha ha ha ha PS.....you are calling Solomon a "dummy"? OMG don't project images of your self onto other people. tsk tsk
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 09:26 am Dont be pissed nix, just accept your nature - be like Moses when he said to God "I am what I am" I can see us having a neverending argument about somthing petty here racist / racialist. Well actually we arn't. You are I am going with my experience & what I have read, so you can do whatever you like. And why do you want me to be a male? Are you gay or somthing?
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 01:46 pm Kali. Pissed as in drunk. And now I have a headache. I don't give a rats about what you think racist and racialist means. I just don't like you cussing me. I can tolerate if your a female, dam, you could smack me in the face and I would tolerate it if your female. But if your male then I wont.
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 03:33 pm Ok, good job guys! The weapons market should just about be recovered. LOL
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 04:23 pm You know nix that brings to mind the fact that I believe MOST 'females' here are cyber drag queens. lol I think there's a possibility it more often gets used as part of the psychological aspect of the politics of the game. Think about it, how many of our girlfriends want anything to do with Simcountry? The only difference for me is choosing the bitch slap or the regular slap. -That's not true, I'm going to use a bitch slap either way. lol Just picture them all as Margaret Thatcher. (I should have said 'queen of england' just for cockney LMAO!)
| |
Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 04:38 pm
1. You are sooo dead. Like... dead. 2. I know many women interested in a game such as this. All good, polite, beautiful women, hence I never invited them.
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 04:39 pm Im new to this game my country is the Independent State of Xinub and you think are gfs dont like sc i have a gf that plays it.
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 05:15 pm Yes, I think the vast majority of women don't find this game appealing. The evidence already shows this fact. It's a numbers game. If 4 or 5 out of 100 women do then it would reflect that, which it pretty much does. I'm just saying no special treatment because it could easily be used as psychological warfare. Ok, I'll amend it... I believe some have actually been men. yeah, MOST is unreasonable. ...and yes Solomon Grundy dead! GRRRRRRR!!
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 05:44 pm Solomon, should I be insulted by your post? Jan
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 05:50 pm um... no, 4 or 5% of women do (I trust YOU not to abuse your power over me lol)
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 05:57 pm Ok, I know when I'm wrong, I couldn't possibly picture Kiss as Margaret Thatcher! It's like auto mechanics. You can be my favorite mechanic and be a woman, but the fact is most women don't like it. (and yeah, there's probably a drag queen mechanic out there somewhere LOL) *be happy I didn't post a link on this one (I'm fighting it! I really am!) oh crap!
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 10:00 pm Is this thread still going? Wow. Be careful. Don't insult KissofDeath. She is very touchy. Oops. I hope I didn't insult her with this post.
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 10:19 pm LoL, Kiss is a tad sensitive, but what woman isn't? Give her a break. Solomon, my husband's mom was a mechanic. Obviously not a certified mechanic, more on the light side like tune ups, oils, brakes and such. But nevertheless a mechanic. You callin my mother in law a drag queen?
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 10:30 pm "You callin my mother a dreag queen"? LOL!
| |
| Saturday, September 26, 2009 - 10:57 pm Did Solomon mention my name and Margaret Thatcher's name in the same sentence?! That's it, I'm gonna whoop up on you, Solomon! lol Neidy, darling, ready to lose a Main country in your empire for a third time? Wow, I must be feeling touchy today. lol
| |
| Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 12:48 am Well I certainly don't want to upset KissofDeath.She will probably do me in with her BreathofDeath.
| |
| Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 01:14 am Gosh, Neidy, u missed ur calling. Should have been a comedian. That is just too funny for words. :-S Is that the best ya got? lol
| |
| Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 01:19 am It was the best I could come up with. 
| |
| Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 06:47 am I am sort of devestated here nix i was so expecting one of those he/she/it comments - I was all geared gp to show that you were not only pretentious etc etc but intolerant & bullying as well. What do you do but come up with an approach that is not only reasonable & accepting but in essence courteous - talk about the world turned upside down As for the racialist/racist thing - it may of course be cultural - where I come from racialist is just not used. May well be different your part of the world. And, it reiteriate - ALL of us are racist to a greater or lesser extent, anyone says they arn't. I would say you are a saint or full of B/S, or in denial. It begs the question why is that so. - Solomon I was going to say that if you really thought that, then you dont know many girls - but I see you have amended your statement And, its not cyber drag queens, it is called gender hacking - why it is done is fascinating in itself. In truth I have done so - this is my third go at SC, first time I played as a male. And SC may be a numbers game - to some, but not to others. Just look at the countries & CEOs with abortions of economies - numbers dont play that big a part. Personally numbers dont play that big a part in my decisions, and I am doing OK (I think why am I running out of credits all the time ) Maybe my fun is in the forums, not tweaking numbers
| |
| Sunday, September 27, 2009 - 07:22 am LOL Neidy, if only I had thought of it first! Treat your mother right.
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 04:16 am LOLOLOLOLOL. Great Video!!
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 10:17 am Hehe! Just don't let the song get stuck in your head at work!
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 01:08 pm I love these long "debate" threads where people talk around each other and avoid the real issues brought up by each side. It allows the common delusions to remain firmly in place. OH! for a good old Oxford style debate where the issue is clearly formulate, the sides assigned and ideas debated.
| |
| Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - 11:09 pm Any issue I've danced around... BRING IT BITCH! LOL!
| |
| Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 03:35 am Okay, Plato, will you be the moderator and set it up properly?
| |
| Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 04:45 am Too bad Little Hitler isn't around for the debate. lol
| |
| Thursday, October 1, 2009 - 05:35 am HAHA. Charlie Chaplain would have loved that video.
| |
| Saturday, October 3, 2009 - 06:41 am Now Jimmy is trying to backtrack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV5ZN6Ishw8 vs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou9TEgvNfXw&feature=related Someone should teach him about youtube.
| |
| Saturday, October 3, 2009 - 02:19 pm The ruling elite doesn't change. Carter and Obama have a lot in common. The only difference is which arm of the puppeteer is up each of their asses.
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 04:30 am "I think an overwhelming portion of the INTENTIONALLY demonstrated aninmosity" of protesters is what he speaks of. Jimmy was talking of those protesters who showed up with the racist type signs depicting Obama in the old classic Jim Crowe era depictions of black people. Jimmy was very careful in his opinion of the people he was speaking about. I myself in an earlier post(about 12 years ago) specifically cited only those who held up 'placards' depicting Obama in a racist light. I don't believe all conservatives are racist.(truly I don't) Carter is 85 years old and grew up in the Jim Crowe south and had to practice his politics there. He knows what he is talking about.
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 05:10 am The reality is, Jimmy was asked to clarify what he meant and he said:
Carter is lying when he says:
What? does he think we're all idiots? Neidy, The images you see are of The Joker, not the black and white painted theater faces of old.
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 05:56 am "overwhelming portion" He DID say that. It is ashame that he is entirely accurate. Truth Hurts. Solomon wake up man, no one is calling YOU a racist, why are you defending them?
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 02:36 pm Using racism for political control is a crime against humanity! knock that shit off! It's an affront to anyone who has been a victim of real racism and that includes mothers who were unable to have open casket funerals because their boys were beaten so horribly that the condition of the body prevented it. We're scared because the President displays the behavior of a Nazi, FOR REAL! Does it matter what color the friggin Nazi happens to be? Fascism is an illness of the mind not the body, the condition of his skin does not concern those who fear for their country. But... People will still go along with the whole cult of personality thing just like good little Germans in the 1930s.
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 02:49 pm 1. I supported Allan Keys against Bush in 2000 and that man is coal black. 2. I'm calling half-white Obama a Nazi. Does this mean I 'hate' Obama because he isn't black enough? What's the whole racist angle on this one?
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 11:22 pm Racism is becoming an overused word. It has become a political club to bludgeon people we don't agree with. Which only serves to lessen the effects when real racism is found. interesting cat Lets just call people assholes. Jimmy Carter is an asshole It's much more descriptive and far more accurate than tired stereotypes. Also thank you all for the 500 trillion I am buying beer and porn with the cashout money in honor of my amigo Saber. I have about another quadrillion worth of weapons stashed away to dump. So keep your eyes open! /me toasts everyone.
| |
| Sunday, October 4, 2009 - 11:52 pm umm screw patriotism and in course nationalism.. we are a state of humanity. We are not bound to our government in fact someone said that the government should fear its people. political borders should dissolve and we should all enjoy a world economy and a world state ran by elected officials, not by some college of votees but popularity. Its the information age, cell phones computers internet. All communicate in this digital medium and it would not be hard to effectively hold a true popular vote. There are billions of star systems out there with even many more billions of planets. I'm sure we should be looking up to those as a future than back to one of the most archaic forms of control ever, racism. Although one can argue the invention of economics and currency was the first step towards government subjigation
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 01:55 am No no no, Carter wasn't restricting his comments just to a few people holding signs he took as racist. That doesn't even make sense...what's the point in saying or implying that "the overwhelming portion of the intentional animosity displayed by the people holding racist signs is motivated by racism"?! No, the press and the pundits on both sides and the administration too took that quote and a few other things he said at the time to refer to the whole demonstration and the movement associated with it. Carter made a gross generalization about a million people, and, by implication, many millions more like myself who were there in sympathy, based on his own preconceptions...that's called bigotry. And so plenty of educated, well-meaning people, some of them posting on this very thread, followed his lead and made accusations referring to the whole mass of demonstrators, not to a few particular ones. Most people don't like to be called racists. People who love and respect their fellow man, regardless of their color, don't like being called racists. People who are afraid or unsure about those who look and act different don't like being called racist. Out and out racists don't like being called racists. And for decades it has been a very effective rhetorical tool for diverting arguments from issues, and for intimidating one's opponents. It's an ad hominem attack. As Sam points out, it is losing its potency, and becoming just a name thrown around indiscriminately. The best way to parry it is the way you'd parry any childish taunt. If someone calls you a racist, just call them a racist back. Jimmy Carter, you're a racist.
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 02:12 am @ everyone else: OMG . . . !!!!! Hey Sam
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 05:49 am I wonder what the Grand Dragon of the KKK would make of all this?
| |
| Monday, October 5, 2009 - 11:45 pm ...and Jo Jo shines some light on the subject.
|
