On Neocons - Page 18 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #171 of 188 (permalink) Old 05-29-2005, 12:59 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: On Neocons

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/27/2005 7:56 PM

Quote:
kvining - 5/27/2005 6:04 PM

I'll match you with reasoned argument anytime. So far the only thing you have been on this board is a name-calling pinhead.
I play to the level of the competition. A guppy will not bite on bait better suited to a shark.
That's where you err, Skeezix. The world is full of schools of witless, nibbling guppies.
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #172 of 188 (permalink) Old 05-29-2005, 01:49 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: On Neocons

Well said.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #173 of 188 (permalink) Old 05-29-2005, 02:20 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: On Neocons

Quote:
Botnst - 5/7/2005 3:20 PM

This writer was there.

http://www.thepublicinterest.com/current/article2.html
In addition to the ever-stimulating arguing about arguing, we might also divert our attention to the title of the thread.

Here's what an oft-described "Neocon" says of his organization, " Project for the New American Century".

Warning! If you cannot read objectively and critically, don't read it. Go back to sniffing glue and huffing Freon. It's safer than intentionally exposing yourself to different points of view.

--------

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.



William Kristol, Chairman
Botnst is offline  
post #174 of 188 (permalink) Old 05-29-2005, 03:04 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Skeezix's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2005
Vehicle: 300 SEL
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: On Neocons

Quote:
Botnst - 5/29/2005 2:59 PM
That's where you err, Skeezix. The world is full of schools of witless, nibbling guppies.
Tis trew. One must hide behind a tree to attach a rusty, baitless hook to the line around here.

Let them hate, so long as they fear — Caligula
Skeezix is offline  
post #175 of 188 (permalink) Old 05-31-2005, 01:40 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: On Neocons

Here's what an argument based on facts looks like, Skeezix:

Editorial: Memorial Day/Praise bravery, seek forgiveness
May 30, 2005 ED0530

Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.

In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.

The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.

At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were right. Both have been pilloried for writing that by summer 2002 Bush had already decided to invade.

Walter Pincus, writing in the Washington Post on May 22, provides further evidence that the administration did, indeed, fix the intelligence on Iraq to fit a policy it had already embraced: invasion and regime change. Just four days before Bush's State of the Union address in January 2003, Pincus writes, the National Security Council staff "put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims" about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. The call went out because the NSC staff believed the case was weak. Moreover, Pincus says, "as the war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs." But no one at high ranks in the administration would listen to them.

On the day before Bush's speech, the CIA's Berlin station chief warned that the source for some of what Bush would say was untrustworthy. Bush said it anyway. He based part of his most important annual speech to the American people on a single, dubious, unnamed source. The source was later found to have fabricated his information.

Also comes word, from the May 19 New York Times, that senior U.S. military leaders are not encouraged about prospects in Iraq. Yes, they think the United States can prevail, but as one said, it may take "many years."

As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious.


Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #176 of 188 (permalink) Old 05-31-2005, 02:45 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
tcp_ML500's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: C 111 Nardo
Location: Exiled
Posts: 9,402
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
re: your "Imagine a world without liberals" avatar

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/29/2005 12:39 PM
So you admit an intent to insult.
Your insistence on believing so must render "usually" equivalent to "always"
I suggest you petition M-W.com to change definition to from "language that is <b>usually</b> directed against an individual" to "language that is <b>always</b> directed against an individual"

Nuances in language are quite cumbersome, better yet superfluous since the meaning of all things are known to you, maybe in exclusion of everyone else, with absolute certainty.

I would also advise you not to consider the word commentary, I used it as a vicious and personal attack.

Feel free to carve out all words herein to lend better meaning to my prose. You know my intentions better than I.

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/29/2005 12:39 PM
You erroneously presuppose that your attempt at insult was successful. Just as praise from a lieberal would bring me no joy, derision from the same source does me no harm.
I don't suppose there is any way to discuss this intelligently? Must I admit to insulting you so that your arguments can hold by themselves? Far from me to imagine I could sway the righteous or reduce the high opinion he has of himself.

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/29/2005 12:39 PM
Your inability to craft a successful insult does not equal my denying you the right to try.

Bew Hew. Life is rough, cupcake...wear a helmet.
Right, I have a lot to learn in the matter of being disrespectful, your avatar shows how adept you are and how much I stand to learn from you, if only I could or cared to apply myself.

Your insistance on lending insulting intentions in most every sentence you write would indicate that you might find interest in researching, on m-w.com preferably, the meaning of insecure. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to help, I know you don't accept praise or derision from liberals, how about help from seomone who may or may not be a liberal? That's OK, feel free to slap me, I'll turn the other cheek! Darn, I can't, that guy is your emblematic figure, in exclusion of all others.

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/29/2005 12:39 PM
Quote:
tcp_ML500
I am not surprised you identify with the individuals portrayed in this oil painting on beaverboard, you, your ideas, and your deliveries of such are Gothic, if American.
Their ideals are completely American. They worked for what they had, and asked nobody for a handout.
You are proud to be an American, at at the same time could not care less about less fortunate Americans than you. An easy dichotomy really, you're either a hard worker or a lazy bastard. When you are manual worker (you is used figuratively here, not meant as an insult), say a steel worker in Pittsburgh before the fall of the steel industry in that city, and the industry disappears, what becomes of you? I'll be proudest when our poorest is well fed, well educated, healthy, productive.

How sad that you would have missed my references to this piece of art. The only knowledge of art you seem to have is as an instrument of investment.

I apologize in advance for this insult.
You are a very litteral person, although not very nuanced as we have previously demonstrated. Google is your friend.

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/29/2005 12:39 PM
How many democraps can say the same?
I can only imagine the Hell you live in. Almost every one out of two individuals you meet is a revolting liberal who amalgamates democratic ideals with fecal matter (hence you judicious, fully describing yet non insulting "democrap"). I am forced to admit and submit to your superiority. Such nobleman with words, such insight, a thought formulated with such care and pondering.

In closing. I am neither a liberal, nor a conservative. I am ready to accept the good from both, and reject the bad from both. I am conservative on some issues, and liberal on others. I wish it were simpler. I wish I could be comfortably categorized, as is your case, a non democrap or conservative, whichever suits you best. Unfortunately, I am a bit more complex, I like to think that I can dissent with whomever, with whatever, regardless of the label attached to the person who promotes an idea, based on the merits of such idea. In short, I am both a democrap and a cunt-servative.

Here I am, with my helmet. I may look sweet, but my eyes, as you can easily make out, are so full of hate, desdain and insult, directed at you.

I feel so miserable without you; its almost like having you here.
-- Stephen Bishop
tcp_ML500 is offline  
post #177 of 188 (permalink) Old 05-31-2005, 04:08 PM
Cruise Control
 
Zeitgeist's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '87 300TD/'90 300D/'94 Quattro/'89 Vanagon TDI/'01 EV Weekender VR6
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 51,730
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1427 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: On Neocons

Quote:
Botnst - 5/29/2005 1:20 PM

Quote:
Botnst - 5/7/2005 3:20 PM

This writer was there.

http://www.thepublicinterest.com/current/article2.html
In addition to the ever-stimulating arguing about arguing, we might also divert our attention to the title of the thread.

Here's what an oft-described "Neocon" says of his organization, " Project for the New American Century".

Warning! If you cannot read objectively and critically, don't read it. Go back to sniffing glue and huffing Freon. It's safer than intentionally exposing yourself to different points of view.

--------

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.



William Kristol, Chairman
...ah, a solid whiff of fascism straight from the wellspring.
Zeitgeist is offline  
post #178 of 188 (permalink) Old 05-31-2005, 05:38 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
RE: On Neocons

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/29/2005 1:25 PM
Explain your confusion any way you like.
This response will do double duty, it will provide a direct response and serve as an example of misinformation you offer. There was nothing ambiguous about my response concerning your apparent confusion reading this thread, which I attributed to the double and triple postings by some of us, which was done in error. Therefore it was not my confusion I was attempting to explain, I was offering you the opportunity to blame the apparent confusion you were experiencing following the sequence of posts on this error by others. For you to suggest my comments were an attempt to explain my confusion on the matter is purposeful misinterpretation of my post, and therefore falls into the category of you promulgating misinformation. Which means, you post "not facts" which will come up again.

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/29/2005 1:25 PM
So which attribute were you claiming alignment with the current administration? Was it the groom-fisting, perhaps? Get whoever helps you log on to explain 'Ad Homenim' to you.
Ok, I will use one of your approved references for the definitin of "Ad Hominem" and we can go from there:
"Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made "


Now, your post, that I made my Caligula comments in reference to, is posted below along with my comments:

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/25/2005 9:28 PM

Here...add this to yer pretty picture collection.

A post with little in terms of any contentions made, and mostly an appeal to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect. Which, seems like it might be kind of an "Ad Hominem" attack itself, by the definition of the reference you tout. Here was my comment:

Quote:
JimSmith - 5/27/2005 10:19 AM

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/25/2005 9:28 PM

Here...add this to yer pretty picture collection.


Let them hate, so long as they fear — Caligula
Quoting Caligula lays a solid base for your perspective being sound, based on understanding and honoring the Constitution of the USA, and being just plain reasonable. Like fisting grooms at weddings, and marrying your sister, after smothering the family head of state once you have killed off every other relative with a claim to the seat of power. Very Bush of you. Jim
Now, my response was neither an attack on Caligula's character as you suggested in a follow-up response, nor an attack on you, personally. It was a statement that your post was in-line with the revolting character of the person you quoted. The gory details of the deeds attributed to Caligula were merely added to underline what corrupt, decayed and brutal dictator he was. While the deeds we know about may differ, I find Caligula's "me first" approach to running a great and powerful dynasty into the ground remarkably similar to GWBush's. While my words were not an attack on you personally, I will say citing Caligula as a figure you admire speaks volumes.

Noting Caligula's character flaws, well documented in history, hardly qualifies as an "Ad Hominem" attack on Caligula. He was not making any contentions, since he did not post on this thread. Context. It seems to be an aspect of intellectual interaction that stymies you. Citing my words as an "Ad Hominem" attack on Caligula to avoid addressing your contention, embodied in your photoshop exercise qualifies as passing out misinformation. Your association with Caligula was a direct result of your action when you quoted him. I presume you quoted him not to suggest his point was invalid, but to the contrary, to proudly express your "oneness" with the spirit of that quote, and thoughts and mind that generated it. It is my opinion that Mr. GW Bush also finds this quote, and possibly many other thoughts of the originator, in harmony with many of his own. Therefore the comment, "very Bush of you."

Your response, with its "dumbocrat" and invoking of the "Ad Hominem" attack, quoted below:
Quote:
Skeezix - 5/27/2005 10:31 AM
Wow. Just like a dumbocrat to take a screaming left turn away from the topic and head directly for an Ad Hominem attack.
wasn't really much more than an appeal to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect, and seemed to be marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/29/2005 1:25 PM
In what way, exactly, am I responsible for your reading comprehension problems? Show me where I claimed my posts 'consist of no more than facts', if you think you can.
I am guilty of exaggerating your statements a bit. However, it was done to bring to light the basic misinformation about facts that you did post. Kind of "tongue in cheek" as it were. Another context challenge for you. For example, here is your post where you lay claim to at least valuing facts quite a bit, and where you point out how you use them:
Quote:
Skeezix - 5/27/2005 8:08 PM

Quote:
JimSmith - 5/27/2005 6:18 PM
Comparing the content of your posts on the subject, the defense you mounted for Caligula was considered "vigorous" if not effective or meaningful. To make you feel better, I will retract the statement and declare it was meaningless too. Done. Jim
What you consider is irrelevant, Jim. Facts are relevant. Which, if I recall correctly, occasioned my entrance into this thread.

Also, I'm a bit miffed that you didn't post this multiple times.
Now, lets ignore the last line for a while, and just address the facts issue. To set the stage, lets look at your first post on this thread and find some facts in there, as opposed to opinions:

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/25/2005 6:00 PM

Quote:
Zeitgeist - 5/25/2005 5:31 PM

Quote:
azimuth - 5/25/2005 12:07 PM
Okay, you don't like her, but tell me where what she has said is wrong.
...what part of the phrases "Islamic savages" and "Islamic loonies" is correct? She's an incendiary polemicist, which means it's entirely irrelevent whether she's right, wrong or wringing wet--facts are beside the point.
I'd say 'savages' and 'loonies' are both correct. How very liberal of you to claim 'facts are beside the point'. If you far-left nutjobs would pay a little more attention to those pesky irrelevant facts, you maybe wouldn't get your behinds booted in national elections.

Ima think I like it here.
Now, can you show a fact in there to me? And the Zeitgeist one liner about facts being irrelevant is only in context (there is that challenge again) if you read his previous posts on this thread dealing with Ms. Coulter. Out of context it does look like a chunk of red meat you would snap at. If you elected to try appeal to more than feelings or prejudices, say intellect for a change, and your posts weren't marked by an attack on an opponent's character, you might have actually let loose a couple of facts to defend Ms. Coulter's life's work instead of issuing an "Ad Hominem" attack on all Islamic people, Zeitgeist and liberal in general.
Quote:
Skeezix - 5/29/2005 1:25 PM
I can imagine no possible scenario where facts do not matter. Facts even matter to liberals...if only as something to avoid.
This is the context issue again. Read Zeitgeist's previous couple of posts. He never suggested facts were not of value. It was Ms. Coulter's ability to sling shit sounding like she was being factual, and her audience listening intently as she appealed to their emotions, feelings, prejudices, and all other features of their beings, except their intellects, that Zeitgeist noted required no actual facts. In that context facts might actually get in the way.

Quote:
Skeezix - 5/29/2005 1:25 PM
Show me where I have 'misinformed' if you think you can.
Your approach to presenting your case if fraught with misinformation. Your message seems to depend on it, much like Mr. Bush's message, and the message of his army of loudmouths, like Ms. Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, the Fox Network, and so on. Show me where you did not quote something out of context, or leave half the story out, because the way you saw what you were quoting or referencing, it made your case. It is that context thing. Quite a challenge. Try a career trying to argue like that with Mother Nature. She is ruthless and always wins. Context is very important. Right up there with facts. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #179 of 188 (permalink) Old 05-31-2005, 05:52 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
RE: On Neocons

Quote:
Joe Bauers - 5/27/2005 10:29 PM

Posted by Botnst: To me, it's all about oil. Saddam was a threat to it. He was bad. He had invaded several of his neighbors and threatened all of them and advocated using oil supply as a directed economic weapon against the USA. That's enough for me. He's no longer in power and that is more than fine with me. It's pure gravy that democracy may find a foothold, if the Iraqi's are willing, in a predominantly Arab country.

---------------------------------------------------

I see--a verbal threat is enough to pull the trigger for you. I suppose when Kruschev pounded his shoe at the U.N. and threatened to "bury" us, you were ready to nuke him and the USSR on the spot.

It's interesting that, to you, oil is the undisputed rationale for whatever form of mayhem we wish to engage in, and for whatever international protocals we wish to violate. Kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the name of oil; kill 1600 (and counting) Americans in the name of oil; torture and maim detainees, whether we are sure they committed a crime or not, all ok in the name of oil. And of course, lie about the rationale for it all, and that, too, is ok--as long as it's for a good cause. And by good cause, we do not really mean removing an evil dictator (who was just fine with us for a long time, when he was cooperative), nor do we mean establishing democracy. That, of course, is just window dressing. That's just the bull shit we feed the masses, who are only too happy to lap lap lap it up.

No, we mean maintaining our constitutional right to drive, drive, drive--and to do so cheaply, far more cheaply than the rest of the industrialized world. For oil, we sacrifice (happily) someone else's sons and daughters and a large chunk of our treasury--just keep the petro flowing, by God.

Joe B.
Different circumstances, different responses. One size does not fit all.
Botnst is offline  
post #180 of 188 (permalink) Old 06-01-2005, 06:35 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Skeezix's Avatar
 
Date registered: May 2005
Vehicle: 300 SEL
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
re: your "Imagine a world without liberals" avatar

Quote:
tcp_ML500 - 5/31/2005 4:45 PM
Your insistence on believing so must render "usually" equivalent to "always"
I suggest you petition M-W.com to change definition to from "language that is <b>usually</b> directed against an individual" to "language that is <b>always</b> directed against an individual"
And I suggest that when you choose an alternate meaning for a word, that you be prepared to supply said definition. Just what does 'sarcasm' mean in your world?
Quote:
tcp_ML500
Nuances in language are quite cumbersome, better yet superfluous since the meaning of all things are known to you, maybe in exclusion of everyone else, with absolute certainty.
Nuances didn't help Kerry very much, either.
Quote:
tcp_ML500
I would also advise you not to consider the word commentary, I used it as a vicious and personal attack.

Feel free to carve out all words herein to lend better meaning to my prose. You know my intentions better than I.
Is this more of that 'nuance' stuff? Or is it sarcasm?
Quote:
tcp_ML500
I don't suppose there is any way to discuss this intelligently? Must I admit to insulting you so that your arguments can hold by themselves? Far from me to imagine I could sway the righteous or reduce the high opinion he has of himself.
I can't answer this until you tell me what 'sarcasm' means in your world. While you're at it...what color is the sky there?
Quote:
tcp_ML500
Right, I have a lot to learn in the matter of being disrespectful, your avatar shows how adept you are and how much I stand to learn from you, if only I could or cared to apply myself.
Do you also chastise posters who erroneously throw around 'Nazi', 'Fascist', and 'Hitler'?
Quote:
tcp_ML500
Your insistance on lending insulting intentions in most every sentence you write would indicate that you might find interest in researching, on m-w.com preferably, the meaning of insecure. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to help, I know you don't accept praise or derision from liberals, how about help from seomone who may or may not be a liberal? That's OK, feel free to slap me, I'll turn the other cheek! Darn, I can't, that guy is your emblematic figure, in exclusion of all others.
Sorry, Sparky...I'm not into BDSM.

Quote:
tcp_ML500
You are proud to be an American, at at the same time could not care less about less fortunate Americans than you.
What makes you think that? I believe that we as a nation are rich enough that nobody needs to go without food, clothing, or shelter. What I object to is buying Cadillacs, color TVs, and Nikes for folks who won't work.
Quote:
tcp_ML500
An easy dichotomy really, you're either a hard worker or a lazy bastard. When you are manual worker (you is used figuratively here, not meant as an insult), say a steel worker in Pittsburgh before the fall of the steel industry in that city, and the industry disappears, what becomes of you?
The same thing that happened to blacksmiths and stagecoach drivers. Times change. Change with them, or get left behind. Anyone in this country can take advantage of the educational opportunities available and go as far as their effort and skill will take them. Those in a shrinking market can re-train in a new field.
Quote:
tcp_ML500
I'll be proudest when our poorest is well fed, well educated, healthy, productive.
Pipe Dream of the Week. There are people out there who wouldn't take a job at $100.00/hour taking inventory for a blind liquor store owner.
Quote:
tcp_ML500
How sad that you would have missed my references to this piece of art. The only knowledge of art you seem to have is as an instrument of investment.

I apologize in advance for this insult.
You are a very litteral person, although not very nuanced as we have previously demonstrated. Google is your friend.
I'm well-aware that there many things about which I know little or nothing...or even know stuff that ain't so. There are also things that I've chosen to avoid. Things like 'nuance' or 'subtlety', for example.
Quote:
tcp_ML500
I can only imagine the Hell you live in. Almost every one out of two individuals you meet is a revolting liberal who amalgamates democratic ideals with fecal matter (hence you judicious, fully describing yet non insulting "democrap"). I am forced to admit and submit to your superiority. Such nobleman with words, such insight, a thought formulated with such care and pondering.
This is more of that sarcasm, ain't it?
Quote:
tcp_ML500
In closing. I am neither a liberal, nor a conservative. I am ready to accept the good from both, and reject the bad from both. I am conservative on some issues, and liberal on others. I wish it were simpler. I wish I could be comfortably categorized, as is your case, a non democrap or conservative, whichever suits you best. Unfortunately, I am a bit more complex, I like to think that I can dissent with whomever, with whatever, regardless of the label attached to the person who promotes an idea, based on the merits of such idea. In short, I am both a democrap and a cunt-servative.

Here I am, with my helmet. I may look sweet, but my eyes, as you can easily make out, are so full of hate, desdain and insult, directed at you.
I think you're taking the internet waaaaay too seriously.

Let them hate, so long as they fear — Caligula
Skeezix is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome