(Uggh for accidently pressing submit instead of preview...)
. . . I think it is amusing to watch people try to pick apart his posts while at the same time skirt around the issues that he raises.
The new crusade
I like nathans posts. The footbag scene (and this is one thing people should realise about it) is for the most part very left and very socially liberal which isn't a bad thing all together, it's just that sometimes i do feel like i'm drowning in hippy juice. Nathan is a very dry, very right antidote for this. It's refreshing even when it is over the top.
-Dale Jury
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Thanks guys. To much liberalism or to much conservatism is a bad thing.
In the forum, I try to see political or global things partially in the context of what is good and bad for footbag.
Many of these issues could affect footbag.
I will give detailed examples at a later post. If anyone cares.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Jeremy's rude, unfounded accusations of ignorance:
I see shades of grey in some things.
I don't dislike you for thinking America is a terrorist nation, I just disagree.
I only dislike you when you personally attack me. My forgiveness(?) only goes so far.
I wont overtly accuse you of ignorance on a topic unless I have "black or white" proof. "Grey" proof only fuels the flames.
Would the following be a black/white, or grey view on the crusade question? :
The crusades never ended, it's just a cycle of (in no particular order),
Muslims conquering parts of "Europe" and the "Holyland", attempting to dominate it all.
Christians conquering parts of "Europe" and the "Holyland", attempting to dominate it all.
It's an ebb and flow through history, with Christians and Muslims controlling parts of "Europe" and the "Holyland" at different times.
So if Muslims (in a generic context) fear Christian domination of the globe,
and if Christians (in a generic context) fear the Muslim domination of the globe, then who am I to tell them their fears are unfounded?
Of course the "globe" is alot bigger than it was back then, with more geo-political and military players involved.
I'll stop here to try keep this attempt at "grayness" brief.
-n
In the forum, I try to see political or global things partially in the context of what is good and bad for footbag.
Many of these issues could affect footbag.
I will give detailed examples at a later post. If anyone cares.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Jeremy's rude, unfounded accusations of ignorance:
I see shades of grey in some things.
I don't dislike you for thinking America is a terrorist nation, I just disagree.
I only dislike you when you personally attack me. My forgiveness(?) only goes so far.
I wont overtly accuse you of ignorance on a topic unless I have "black or white" proof. "Grey" proof only fuels the flames.
Would the following be a black/white, or grey view on the crusade question? :
The crusades never ended, it's just a cycle of (in no particular order),
Muslims conquering parts of "Europe" and the "Holyland", attempting to dominate it all.
Christians conquering parts of "Europe" and the "Holyland", attempting to dominate it all.
It's an ebb and flow through history, with Christians and Muslims controlling parts of "Europe" and the "Holyland" at different times.
So if Muslims (in a generic context) fear Christian domination of the globe,
and if Christians (in a generic context) fear the Muslim domination of the globe, then who am I to tell them their fears are unfounded?
Of course the "globe" is alot bigger than it was back then, with more geo-political and military players involved.
I'll stop here to try keep this attempt at "grayness" brief.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Exactly - but here is one mistake in it:The crusades never ended, it's just a cycle of (in no particular order),
Muslims conquering parts of "Europe" and the "Holyland", attempting to dominate it all.
Christians conquering parts of "Europe" and the "Holyland", attempting to dominate it all.
It's an ebb and flow through history, with Christians and Muslims controlling parts of "Europe" and the "Holyland" at different times.
Bush are using the term crusade but his intentions are not religious!
He wants to fight against terror.
In my opinion Bush are not knowing what he is doing by using such things like a religious war.
And noone tried to make a crusade after the original ones so far as I know.
The chapter of the crusades is one of the ugliest in church's history I guess.
Moreover you should try to learn something from your former mistakes!
By the way how can anybody like Bush fight a religious war when the Papst is against this war !!!
Currently Bush is using religion in his politic advantage and fakes US citizens
Jochen Bauer
Paradox Feet Footbag Club
http://www.paradoxfeet.de
Website:
http://www.jochen-bauer.net
Paradox Feet Footbag Club
http://www.paradoxfeet.de
Website:
http://www.jochen-bauer.net
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Yes, because it would really show our weakness for punishing a marine who killed (Wether maliciously or not) an unarmed, injured fighter. All this would serve to do is enflame the Muslim world and show them that we're just as bad as they are.That would show the Muslim world our weakness, punishing our OWN troops for killing the enemy, and further encourage them to use dirty, "un-Geneva" tactics.
That soldier, right or wrong, should be given a medal for protecting his squad. That would earn respect in the "Muslim world" (to use Bainbriges term).
How did the fucking soldier protect his squad? In the long run he is just putting more US soldiers in danger by helping to piss off the Muslim world.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Yes because the more the American people know, the worse off we are. Knowledge is unpatriotic kids!The solution to this problem, is to remove all embeddded reporters, and charge the one who released this footage with a crime. This reporting hamstrings the war effort, and could directly influence more enemies to join the fight, and result in more casualties.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
Some quotes from George:
Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country.
-- Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.
-- Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003
The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the—the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice.
-- Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003
For every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings. Folks, this is unacceptable in America. We're going to do something about it.
-- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 14, 2001
Ok the last two are probably not what he meant to say. I completely agree with the first two though.
Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country.
-- Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.
-- Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003
The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the—the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice.
-- Washington, D.C., Oct. 27, 2003
For every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal shootings. Folks, this is unacceptable in America. We're going to do something about it.
-- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 14, 2001
Ok the last two are probably not what he meant to say. I completely agree with the first two though.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
To be honest, I have only seen part of that shooting tape on T.V.
I don't know what the context is.
I remember the Rodney King tape of a decade ago.
I saw the full tape ONCE on T.V. showing Rodney actively attacking officers.
But I saw the tape of him being beating 1000 times.
Of course, you can't get the citizenry to burn down L.A. if they saw the whole tape.
If a burned city and race riot deaths is what it takes to get juicy news reels,to get ratings, then so be it.
And if an enraged Arab world and more resulting U.S. troops deaths is what it takes to get ratings, then so be it.
Even without knowing all the facts, I would lean towards filing military charges against the man who released that tape to Al-Jizzm T.V. That is a propaganda tool for the enemy, that directly hurts the war effort.
Freedom of press does not mean freedom to aid the enemy.
--------------------------------------------
Jeremy wrote:
----------------
Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country.
-- Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004
---------------
Indeed, what have U.S. troops done to stop a steady stream of foreign agitators from entering Iraq? Apparently nothing.
Using a strategy of letting all the enemies come to you, is not the best plan when you are apparently trying to preserve the nation you occupy.
Don't let your enemies come to you unless you are willing to raze the cities they infiltrate.
Jeremy quoted Bush:
-----------------------------------------------------
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.
-- Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003
---------------------------------------------------
Iraqi people will NEVER be free. Their new constitution has no "2nd amendment". During current hostilities, they will be at the mercy of foreign agitators.
The U.S. or Iraqi army cannot defend the whole citizenry.
In a thoeretical future where U.S. troops are gone and the Iraqi army maintains control over it's borders, citizens will enjoy rights ONLY at the leasure of those in power, to be taken away at ANY time they see fit.
The disarmed public will just be sheep, to be led or slaughtered as the government sees fit.
-n
I don't know what the context is.
I remember the Rodney King tape of a decade ago.
I saw the full tape ONCE on T.V. showing Rodney actively attacking officers.
But I saw the tape of him being beating 1000 times.
Of course, you can't get the citizenry to burn down L.A. if they saw the whole tape.
If a burned city and race riot deaths is what it takes to get juicy news reels,to get ratings, then so be it.
And if an enraged Arab world and more resulting U.S. troops deaths is what it takes to get ratings, then so be it.
Even without knowing all the facts, I would lean towards filing military charges against the man who released that tape to Al-Jizzm T.V. That is a propaganda tool for the enemy, that directly hurts the war effort.
Freedom of press does not mean freedom to aid the enemy.
--------------------------------------------
Jeremy wrote:
----------------
Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilize their country.
-- Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004
---------------
Indeed, what have U.S. troops done to stop a steady stream of foreign agitators from entering Iraq? Apparently nothing.
Using a strategy of letting all the enemies come to you, is not the best plan when you are apparently trying to preserve the nation you occupy.
Don't let your enemies come to you unless you are willing to raze the cities they infiltrate.
Jeremy quoted Bush:
-----------------------------------------------------
See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.
-- Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003
---------------------------------------------------
Iraqi people will NEVER be free. Their new constitution has no "2nd amendment". During current hostilities, they will be at the mercy of foreign agitators.
The U.S. or Iraqi army cannot defend the whole citizenry.
In a thoeretical future where U.S. troops are gone and the Iraqi army maintains control over it's borders, citizens will enjoy rights ONLY at the leasure of those in power, to be taken away at ANY time they see fit.
The disarmed public will just be sheep, to be led or slaughtered as the government sees fit.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
I`m bookmarking this page, so when we do the Moddy for `Biggest Hypocrite on the forums`, I won`t waste a lot of time looking for this post.HighDemonslayer wrote:
Lastly, I checked off Bush on the ballot.
Seriously, how are we supposed to believe anything you say from now on? You have no credibility.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
You should be proud of my processing of new information to make new conclusions, even if you disagree with the reasons.
Looks pretty cut and dried to me:
1. I reluctantly voted for Bush (to offset the Kerry fraud that didn't materialize locally)
2. Bush was re-elected in my state by a landslide(making my vote moot)
2b. Bush wins re-election nationally.
2c. Bush continues campaigning, for what exactly, I don't know.
3. Bush immediately becomes as liberal as possible, pushing harmful agendas that would have certainly lost him the election if he campaigned on them.
4. Bush goes shakes hands, and kisses the ass of every domestic and foreign body that insulted, backstabbed, and undermined him for 4 years. (At least Bill Clinton would have had those nations' "heads on a platter", you know he would have made them pay somehow.)
I recognize that Bush spends like a drunk sailor, and gets away with leftism and power grabs that no Republican congress would ever allow a Democrat president to do.
You are just pissed because you believe Bush will bring back the Inquision and install a Christian theocracy.
You should be happy because Bush is forwarding policies that will spell the death of his party.
-n
Looks pretty cut and dried to me:
1. I reluctantly voted for Bush (to offset the Kerry fraud that didn't materialize locally)
2. Bush was re-elected in my state by a landslide(making my vote moot)
2b. Bush wins re-election nationally.
2c. Bush continues campaigning, for what exactly, I don't know.
3. Bush immediately becomes as liberal as possible, pushing harmful agendas that would have certainly lost him the election if he campaigned on them.
4. Bush goes shakes hands, and kisses the ass of every domestic and foreign body that insulted, backstabbed, and undermined him for 4 years. (At least Bill Clinton would have had those nations' "heads on a platter", you know he would have made them pay somehow.)
I recognize that Bush spends like a drunk sailor, and gets away with leftism and power grabs that no Republican congress would ever allow a Democrat president to do.
You are just pissed because you believe Bush will bring back the Inquision and install a Christian theocracy.
You should be happy because Bush is forwarding policies that will spell the death of his party.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
MegaFighter_X
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: 27 Apr 2003 16:52
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
Nathan, i think the reason people disagree so vehemently with you sometimes is because of a difference you illustrate beautifully when you say...
"You are just pissed because you believe Bush will bring back the Inquision and install a Christian theocracy."
and then...
"You should be happy because Bush is forwarding policies that will spell the death of his party."
I'm just not so sure. Here (basically anywhere else in the western world) we're fucking terrified that maybe Bushism wont be a brief flirt with megalomania. He got re-elected! Kerry was a muppet, but c'mon, you guys just gave your support to a man that brought you war, economic downturn, errosion of civil liberties, increased fear, increased patriotism, decresed wages and increased contempt from the world. In nowhere but america would he get into office a second time, it's bizarre.
"You are just pissed because you believe Bush will bring back the Inquision and install a Christian theocracy."
and then...
"You should be happy because Bush is forwarding policies that will spell the death of his party."
I'm just not so sure. Here (basically anywhere else in the western world) we're fucking terrified that maybe Bushism wont be a brief flirt with megalomania. He got re-elected! Kerry was a muppet, but c'mon, you guys just gave your support to a man that brought you war, economic downturn, errosion of civil liberties, increased fear, increased patriotism, decresed wages and increased contempt from the world. In nowhere but america would he get into office a second time, it's bizarre.
-Dale Jury
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Was the scope of those two quoted statements to large? I believe they do relate to each other.
I just see the fear of a thoecracy installed by Bush to be unlikely. Pick any recent American controversy or court case about Christianity under attack, and Bush is silent.
He never stands up and says "People should be free to practice their religion."
Lawsuit after lawsuit, Christianity loses. Bush says nothing.
In the long-view, Christianity may be on the way out in America , like in Europe.
Don't worry about Jesus, some other rising religion will come along and persecute you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important segment of Bush's parties voting block is the religious folks.
They will notice sometime that Bush is silent on every attack on them. Maybe.
He may be seen as God's gift to Christians, but I perceive him doing everything to piss of the base that elected him.
The immigration issue, for example, may split his party, or left unchecked, destroy it completely.
If Bush keeps moving left, he will cripple his party
I believe Kerry's party is in shambles also.
-n
I just see the fear of a thoecracy installed by Bush to be unlikely. Pick any recent American controversy or court case about Christianity under attack, and Bush is silent.
He never stands up and says "People should be free to practice their religion."
Lawsuit after lawsuit, Christianity loses. Bush says nothing.
In the long-view, Christianity may be on the way out in America , like in Europe.
Don't worry about Jesus, some other rising religion will come along and persecute you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important segment of Bush's parties voting block is the religious folks.
They will notice sometime that Bush is silent on every attack on them. Maybe.
He may be seen as God's gift to Christians, but I perceive him doing everything to piss of the base that elected him.
The immigration issue, for example, may split his party, or left unchecked, destroy it completely.
If Bush keeps moving left, he will cripple his party
I believe Kerry's party is in shambles also.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
"Lawsuit after lawsuit, Christianity loses" - Your're gonna have to elaborate, not being a norte americano i haven't noticed the cases you're talking about.
And what things are you talking about when you say Bush is slipping left? Economicly or socially?
I'm not actually worried about Georgie per se, he's gonna run out of time in four years, but if America then gives it's mandate to a continuing slide towards theocracy i'll be very worried. And i think there is good reason to worry; most of your population believes in creationism over evolution, i mean what the fuck? I easily envisage america electing another and another authoritarian, religious imperialist.
And what things are you talking about when you say Bush is slipping left? Economicly or socially?
I'm not actually worried about Georgie per se, he's gonna run out of time in four years, but if America then gives it's mandate to a continuing slide towards theocracy i'll be very worried. And i think there is good reason to worry; most of your population believes in creationism over evolution, i mean what the fuck? I easily envisage america electing another and another authoritarian, religious imperialist.
-Dale Jury