Dark Moth

As Muso said, I found the stupidity of the people who got themselves beat up funny. Those were my exact words, no? I didn't find them beaten to a bloody pulp funny, but they should have had more sense than that. So no, not the same thing, though you probably wouldn't want to admit it. My views on this give you no right whatsoever to judge me as a Christian or as a person., so don't do it. You of all people have no right to go about judging others' character based on their reaction to one silly situation. But hey, not as if you use logic, right? As I said, of course you wouldn't see the blatant hypocrisy of your posts. It's one thing to place the lives of your family and friends over another, but it's another thing entirely to completely disregard the lives of strangers just because they live in another country. You have the nerve to claim you care about the sufferings of others, then you come along and propose we eliminate an entire population off the face of the earth regardless of the lives lost. Your basic philosphy is, 'they're not from my country, so their lives are worthless'. Funny, that's the same language bigots use. And don't give me that stuff about you caring so much about those who suffer. You're the same one who said yourself that you'd never help out a person under attack by someone else. "Being a hero is a sure way to get killed," you said. Where's the hypocrisy in that, Hades? But I guess this is to be expected. A while back I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you said you'd turn over a new leaf. But so far, I have yet to see any significant change in your posting whatsoever. You still show the same blatant hypocrisy and bigotry (anti-Christian among others) now that you showed back then, and the fact that you show it and yet still can't seem to realize it makes my physically sick. So before you go off trying to demonize me, give yourself a good, hard look in the moral mirror.

Of course you wouldn't. And this comes from the guy who cries a river for some individuals beaten up by Uwe. Sorry, carry on. Actually, I do agree with Tigranes on a few points. Though I don't think N Korea or Iran having nukes is so much an issue of them 'defending themselves' as much as it is about them gaining worldwide influence. Nukes are like the viagra of nations - everyone wants them in order to feel bigger. There is one issue however that I have regarding MAD. The whole concept of MAD (mutual assure destruction) is like a deterrant based on the assumption that a country won't use nukes first because doing so would ensure that other countries use nukes against them. However, and this isn't necessarily the case with North Korea, we face enemies on many fronts, particularly the Islamic extremists, who have no fear of death whatsoever and live, in a sense, to die. For many of them, their ultimate boon would be to die in glory knowing that they had killed as many infidels as possible. Likewise, one thing that worries me most about N Korea or Iran aquiring nukes is whom they might sell them to once they do. If Iran aquired nukes, I have no doubt it'd use them to gain widespread influence in the ME, and possibly sell them to their puppets in Hizbollah, and maybe even al-Quaeda as well.

I don't think meta ever claimed that. Besides, you have to be very careful when posting polls. Polls can be easily manipulated and distorted, and it's always a good idea to know where the poll comes from. Your timeline also does little to support your argument as well. You post merely the events, not the 'how' or 'why'. What exactly is your objective for doing so? Okay, you say you did that to show how we weren't 'proactive'. Well what do you mean to accomplish by proving that? As of right now, what you posted has little bearing on the issue at hand. Also, you say we stood by, but it's not as if we were doing nothing. We still supported europe against the nazis indirectly. Bottom line is however, it wasn't our war at first. And at the time, as in World War 1, America was very much against going to war. When Japan made it personal for us, then it became our war, too. You criticize the US for not getting involved in a war on another continent, which we did eventually. That's good and fine, but then you chastise us for getting into a war that does concern us. What do you want? But as usual, you can't back up what you spout. Before brushing off other people's posts as nonsense, you'd do well to actually try and present a valid point instead of spouting off more theories based souly on your political idealology. You haven't corrected anything. You've merely trivalized and brushed aside arguments without actually proving anybody wrong, as you've so often done in the past. If you have no interest, fine. But don't expect to be taken seriously if you can't support yourself. And I don't know where you come from trying to claim that I was bullying you. I wasn't bullying, merely trying to expose the fallacies in your arguments. You'd like for me to be bullying you so you can play the victim in this and garner sympathy for yourself. And yeah, the truth is out there. Blah blah blah. But perhaps you should try finding it yourself before telling me too.

"Misintepreting"? I don't see much of that going around. I think this has more to do with the fact that Meta has repeatedly shot down your arguments and you have yet to answer to him effectively. Perhaps your arguments would be more credible if you actually backed up your statements with pertinent facts, and sources. But your problem is you've repeatedly shown here and in past threads that you don't so much as shape your opinions on facts but on a left-wing political dogma. You come up with the vaguest things to support your POV no matter the credibility, and when someone proves you wrong on any topic, you either don't admit it or you ignore it completely. And just as you're doing now, you automatically assume the worst when it comes to the US motives, its leaders, or *gasp* right-wingers, such as myself, in general. You make claims that the gov. in Iraq is just a puppet of the U.S. that has no clue of the needs of its people. Like so many of your statements, you can't back it up. And when called on it, you can't answer. You need to realize that this government was something democratically elected by the Iraqis themselves. Us being there in Iraq is a matter of security. With the billions of dollars the war is costing the U.S. already, you can't say we're merely there for financial gain. You say we're too occupied with being in control, but I think you fail to realize that we're trying to be in control in Iraq because we want to help these people. We don't want control of the people mind you, we want to be in control of the security down their so people don't have to worry about a car bomb blowing up in their neighborhood every time they leave their homes. You say we should leave, but you don't bother to consider the fact that Iraq's security forces are still in their fledgling stages, or the potential power vacuum that could result if we just packed up and left. If you have something to say to this, by all means say it. But don't beat around the bush or spout out more conspiracy theories.

Alan for teh win.

I find the stupidity of the people who actually accepted the challenge funny. Funny, but I do still consider myself Christian. Fancy that. Even though by your definition Christians are exactly the type of people who should find this funny. I guess by your logic that means I also found 9/11 hilarious. Once again, your profound sense of logic simply blows us away. But in all honesty, do us and yourself a favor and just stop. You have no business judging others, Christians or otherwise, and trying to place yourself on a higher moral pedestal. You hate it when people do it to you, so don't do it to others.

Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb

LINK This is the 'Trapped in the Closet Chapter 1' by R. Kelly. Some of you might have seen these before. There are actually 12 chapters in all, but I think most of them are pretty hilarious. They're great if you look at them as a parody of soap operas. I think my favorite is number 11. Someone told me that they were actually meant to be serious, which makes it even funnier. :D Oh yeah, content is not suitable for children, so be warned.

....... I'm not a huge fan of violence but that part made me laugh.

That depends on the motive behind your actions. You're just looking at the action itself and not the reason. If someone refrains from killing someone else because it's wrong, then that would make him morally superior. However if that person refrains from taking a life only because he's concerned about his own skin, then that really doesn't place him on a higher moral platform. Sure that means there won't be a murder, which is always a better thing. But then again that person couldn't say he was morally superior to a murderer because of his reasons for not killing him. Actually, not really, because I have a responsibility to others as well as to myself. I don't know where you get off claiming a person has to only live with himself or herself, since very frequently that isn't the case. But Hades, earlier you've stated how you strongly believe that there is no right and wrong, just all gray...and this was a concept you'd emphasize with your children if you had any. Change your mind?

If I wanted to kill someone fear would not hold me back because I really have nothing to fear. I have no heaven to strive for and I have no hell to fear. I should have been dead a half dozen times already. What do I have to fear? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Prison, maybe? And the prospect of being fresh meat amongst a bunch of sex-starved inmates?

I know what I want for Christmas. But seriously this is a great scientific endeavor. I can't wait to see where they take this.

Just because you obey the law and a murderer did not does not make you morally better than him or her. For all we know, you may have had the desire to kill someone more than once in your life but only refused to do so for fear of the consequences. Then the only difference between you and the murderer would be that he had the balls to actually take a life while you did not. But that would not make you better than him or her.

Not according to the latest Forbes list. They've got you burghermeisters sobered up to #8. Me? Here and there. By "here" I mean California, the golden land of promise. 'Cept the promises are less reliable than sunshine here in the pyrite land of illusion. At least it never rains. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Really? Damn, we gotta work on that!

Okay then. Estoy de acuerdo. @julianw: I was thinking more along the lines of Mothie Hannity and Chupa Holmes.

Alright. But I don't think you can say that one person can't know more than another person about what happens in the world. That would be like saying that a history professor wouldn't know more about history than the average joe on the street. It depends on how much people read into these things and how much they desire to know the truth. We can all be mislead, but one who knows a lot about what he or she is talking about has less of a chance of being mislead than the other. If one knows about history or current events, or both, than that person at least has more credibility to offer his opinion on a subject than someone who doesn't read at all. Aw, when you put it that way...just forget everything I said.

Por que piensas que no se mucho sobre las idiomas extranjeras? Y mas, por que estas tratando de paracer como una persona listo? No tiene razon. Se mucho sobre los paises del mundo, pero has mostrado frecuentemente que no sepas mucho sobre que hables. Eres tan cojo que no puedas discutir sin recurrir a ataques personales, como religion! Que tonto.

Right. Anyway as much as I'd like to continue this pointless chat, we're derailing an already sad thread and not really making things better for any of us. We could keep trading childish insults back and forth, but that would only drag me down to your level of idiocy, in which you'd beat me with experience. And before you go trying to tease me about my one mistake on geography, perhaps you'd do better to actually learn some history and current events, before trying to make others look stupid. Try also learning how to argue more like someone your age and not like a hormonal 12 year old. Adios.

Key word is "believe". I could believe that frogs become super models when kissed, but that doesn't make it true, now does it? Truth is, you don't know any more than anyone else does. Don't treat your view point as fact, and others' as worthless. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't automatically treat others viewpoints as worthless. When history and facts prove a person's arguments wrong, then their viewpoint is probably not worth listening to. Your whole 'supermodel frog' example is both silly and inadequate to show your point because everyone knows that that can't happen in real life. It's something that is scientifically impossible that has been proved wrong by scientific fact. When something becomes a fact, then it is truth. You could say that's what you believe, but nobody would believe you because everything proves you wrong. The frog example isn't like when reads about politics or current events. Current events are something that should be obtained from multiple sources. Then you could determine what is true and what's not, because you'd have evidence to support one view or the other.

Actually, I won't call you whatever I like, because that would be wrong and probably lower me to your level of childish prattling. I don't know why I even responded to your little plea for attention in the firsts place, seeing how provoking me is probably the only thing you meant to do in your little attempt to be smart. And I'll have you know, while I may be fuzzy on the Dutch/Danish differences, I am well-learned in geography and I know all about Foreignenia and its culture. What? You have a brain, don't you? Sort out the truth for yourself. As much as I hate to admit it, I do agree with Judge Hades. Don't look at what just one person says, but look at an issue from all sides and then determine what you believe is the truth.

You know me Bushie <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, I do. And that is that you could not hope to argue your point without resorting to personal attacks to save your soul. What's with the name-calling, anyway? Geez, it's not as if I go around calling you 'homo' or 'dutchie'. And no, I will not cyber with you. Stope PMing me. so what happnens when Clinton says one thing, GW says another, and the next pres says that a third thing happened? who do you believe to give you the truth? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whichever is most truthful.

Goodness! That seemed a little uncalled for. Though I guess from you that's to be expected. And to answer your question, I'm an advocate of truthism.

To answer your question, yes he would ignore the whole Soviet invasion. To my knowledge, Hades seems to be an advocate of isolationism.

Neither Bush nor Clinton have accepted responsibility for 9/11, even though both can take their own share of the blame. But Bill Clinton did not make things any better during his time in the oval office. Bill Clinton had criticized Bush for not doing enough to prevent 9/11. He had more of an opportunity than Bush did at first to get bin Laden. He had the reason and the opportunity. What if Bush had decided to go after bin Laden right off the bat when he first came into office? It probably would not be much different than what you see today with Iraq. All these cries of American aggression and an unprovoked, unjust war. You would probably have many people accusing him of just trying to finish what Clinton started. Bill Clinton could have avoided that if he had chosen to actually aggressively pursue bin Laden after he initially attacked the U.S. He had an opportunity, and he squandered it. Thanks to him, it probably was inevitable. The plans for 9/11 were concieved as early as 1999. Nobody would have guessed that terrorists were planning on flying planes into buildings. With the warnings the BA recieved, everyone expected a typical hijacking, which the report seemed to indicate. Clinton however, did not make bin Laden a big issue during his final years as a President. Then he tries to blame Bush for not doing enough. That is hypocrisy. And yes, he is playing politics. Both sides are playing politics. But don't try to make it seem like one side is more guilty than the other. Bill Clinton is just as, if not more guilty than Bush for 9/11. The people have every right to place the blame on his shoulders. Of course, ultra-liberals won't do that, neither will the vast majority of the media. The media has always been liberally biased. And when Fox News comes around, everyone accuses it of bias. They don't do it because of facts, mind you, they do it because they present an alternate viewpoint. So many liberals simply dismiss it as mindless conservative bullcrap propaganda without actually trying to prove how or why it is so.