A
Anonymous
Guest
I always thought the USA was in Iraq not to "win" but to get rid of a tyrannical regime and establish democracy 
US elections
- Thread starter Anomica
- Start date
SneakySneaky
Trooper
I guess it's to win against the tyrannical regime 
Genghis Khan
Ancient Mariner
Lorax said:
Bill O'Reilly being wise is an oxymoron.
Lorax said:
Anyone who quotes that douchebag is himself a douchebag. No exceptions.
Yes, Lorax, I'm calling you a douchebag. Based on the quality of your posts thus far - or more precisely, the lack thereof - you are demonstrating yourself to be a worthless moron.
As for any anti-Republican stance here: I'm proud to be opposed to anything and everything the Republican party stands for. Let me give some examples:
Republicans[sup]1[/sup] oppose raising the minimum wage. Apparently, they've never worked for minimum wage. In today's economy, even a single person can't survive on it, let alone a family. Opposing the raising of it is equal to opposing the livelihood of millions of Americans. Therefore, I support raising the minimum wage.
Republicans oppose any civil rights for homosexuals. I have known several gay people - one of them even saved my life once, and became a good friend. I don't take kindly to people insulting a minority group for no good reason. If you're not comfortable when considering their sex lives, then stop considering it and leave them alone. Furthermore, the history of the US is one of expanding rights for minorities[sup]2[/sup]. Opposing rights for homosexuals goes against everything this country stands for. Therefore, I support any effort to expand civil rights for homosexuals.
Republicans favor escalation of the war in Iraq. John McCain said on "Meet The Press" last Sunday that no matter what strategy the US takes, more troops are required there. I say, enough have died (both American and especially innocent Iraqi civilians). We need to get completely out of there, NOW. Let Iraq have their civil war. That country will never stabilize while American troops are there. If a stable Iraq is in the interests of the US, then getting out now is our best chance. Therefore, I support bringing all those troops home now.
Republicans favor treating illegal immigrants like criminals and wasting billions on a fence. These people came to the US seeking a better life; if that broke a law, then the law needs to be modified. The smart solution is a program involving amnesty and citizenship (which even chief dumdum Bush supports). From hearing republicans speak about it, their chief fear seems to be dilution of Anglo culture as more Latinos come to the US. Republicans need to wake up: neither brown skin nor speaking Spanish is a criminal offense. This is the 21st century; we need to have a global outlook. Therefore, I support amnesty and citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Lorax, there's a reason that people here take an anti-Republican stance. It's because the Republican stance is one of stagnation, bigotry and corruption. No intelligent person supports such things, and there are many intelligent people here. You're not one of them. If you don't like our attitude, feel free to go fuck yourself.
[sup]1[/sup]By this I mean most Republicans. You can find exceptions for any rule.
[sup]2[/sup]True, the history of civil rights in the US has been long and hard, and we've made many mistakes. (Slavery and Jim Crow laws, for example.) But even if it takes decades, these mistakes get corrected eventually.
Edit, to close a loophole: Anybody who quotes O'Reilly and believes his bullshit is a douchebag. Quoting that douchebag for purposes of demonstrating his douchebag-ness is acceptable.
To add to SMX's brilliant post, I'd like to point out that he's referring to the modern, 21st century Republican party. The old-style Republicans such as Eisenhower or Nixon (who is really the most misunderstood POTUS in history) would be labelled as "unpatriotic" by today's Republicans because they favoured:
1. Fiscal restraint in all matters. (Bush's Neo-Republicans have plunged the US into a huge deficit, the most un-Republican thing ever.)
2. Un-intrusive, small government. (Bush's cronies in the Neo-Republican movement have invaded the personal lives in the name of 'anti-terrorism' far too often. Furthermore, they think the state has a right to dictate how people ive their lives.)
3. Isolationism, or at least only intervening other countries when absolutely necessary (I think this speaks for itself)
In the context of their times, sure the old Republicans seem ultra-conservative. But if they were alive today, it would be fairly reasonable to make the claim that the guys like Nixon, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln would be outed as "Liberals" because of their tenacious defenses of the above tenets.
This neo-Republican movement led by Bush, Cheney, et al. is without precedent in American history. (It's even inaccurate to call it neo-conservatism, according to the definitions of Nathan Glazer or Irving Kristol)
1. Fiscal restraint in all matters. (Bush's Neo-Republicans have plunged the US into a huge deficit, the most un-Republican thing ever.)
2. Un-intrusive, small government. (Bush's cronies in the Neo-Republican movement have invaded the personal lives in the name of 'anti-terrorism' far too often. Furthermore, they think the state has a right to dictate how people ive their lives.)
3. Isolationism, or at least only intervening other countries when absolutely necessary (I think this speaks for itself)
In the context of their times, sure the old Republicans seem ultra-conservative. But if they were alive today, it would be fairly reasonable to make the claim that the guys like Nixon, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln would be outed as "Liberals" because of their tenacious defenses of the above tenets.
This neo-Republican movement led by Bush, Cheney, et al. is without precedent in American history. (It's even inaccurate to call it neo-conservatism, according to the definitions of Nathan Glazer or Irving Kristol)
Anomica
Trooper
SMX, that's a brillilant post. I actually laughed out loud at your closing remarks.
I feel, however, that it's important to let "the other side" have a say if we want to live in a vital democracy. If I lived in the US I'd probably be a left-wing democrat - and in Swedish political life, I'm what's called a Social democrat, but I hope that it's still allowed to be a republican (or right-wing in another country) on this board? I mean, consider the boring discussions if everybody felt the same about everything. As long as we have the right-wing people telling their view of the world and how to correct today's society, it's easy for us to get our message across.
I hate to see what the (right-wing) government are doing in Sweden right now - almost every change they're advocating leads to less money for the bottom third of the population in order to get more money to the top tenth. Tax cuts for property owners are financed with lower unemployment benefits and sick leave, for example. It makes me sick.
I feel, however, that it's important to let "the other side" have a say if we want to live in a vital democracy. If I lived in the US I'd probably be a left-wing democrat - and in Swedish political life, I'm what's called a Social democrat, but I hope that it's still allowed to be a republican (or right-wing in another country) on this board? I mean, consider the boring discussions if everybody felt the same about everything. As long as we have the right-wing people telling their view of the world and how to correct today's society, it's easy for us to get our message across.
I hate to see what the (right-wing) government are doing in Sweden right now - almost every change they're advocating leads to less money for the bottom third of the population in order to get more money to the top tenth. Tax cuts for property owners are financed with lower unemployment benefits and sick leave, for example. It makes me sick.
A
Anonymous
Guest
SinisterMinisterX said:
Well that's not really honourable to slander me in those ways for enjoying the witticisms of Bill O'Reilly. I thought that you'd be open to different viewpoints and my viewpoint is that the Republicans should be given the benefit of the doubt. After all, what did the Democrats achieve in their short term??
Hoever you are entitled to an opinion and I wont call you any names because that's not sportsmanship.
But I enjoyed what you had to say.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Right, I think it's time to put a stop to all this...
Lorax claims to be from Norway, but registered with an Australian email address and has a Scottish IP. To some, it would make him a citizen of the world. To me, it makes him a troll. As simple as that.
Whatever he says is well-written, with an excellent mastery of the English language in both its spelling and grammar, showing a sign of good education, as well as a certain amount of intelligence. However, the content of his posts is simply there to upset and/or infuriate people of our little community. Most of what he writes is actually empty of meaning. In other terms, he speaks a lot, but says very little.
The very little he says, though, is deliberately offensive to most of us, and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even believe a word he writes (if he does, well, fuck him!). The avatar with the little 'white-supremacy' sluts is another proof that Lorax is only here to 'stir the shit', as the saying goes. This avatar has incidentally been removed on request from a moderator.
So I urge you people to ignore his constant provocation. Posts that are too obviously offensive will be deleted and Lorax will be banned if he doesn't clean up his act. This is a warning to you lot not to respond to his pathetic messages, as well as a warning to him to change his attitude or face the consequences. No rule has been obviously broken to justify a ban, but this is a borderline situation. Lorax is hanging on the edge and he'll fall if he doesn't quickly regain his balance.
So remember what Nicko said:
Lorax claims to be from Norway, but registered with an Australian email address and has a Scottish IP. To some, it would make him a citizen of the world. To me, it makes him a troll. As simple as that.
Whatever he says is well-written, with an excellent mastery of the English language in both its spelling and grammar, showing a sign of good education, as well as a certain amount of intelligence. However, the content of his posts is simply there to upset and/or infuriate people of our little community. Most of what he writes is actually empty of meaning. In other terms, he speaks a lot, but says very little.
The very little he says, though, is deliberately offensive to most of us, and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even believe a word he writes (if he does, well, fuck him!). The avatar with the little 'white-supremacy' sluts is another proof that Lorax is only here to 'stir the shit', as the saying goes. This avatar has incidentally been removed on request from a moderator.
So I urge you people to ignore his constant provocation. Posts that are too obviously offensive will be deleted and Lorax will be banned if he doesn't clean up his act. This is a warning to you lot not to respond to his pathetic messages, as well as a warning to him to change his attitude or face the consequences. No rule has been obviously broken to justify a ban, but this is a borderline situation. Lorax is hanging on the edge and he'll fall if he doesn't quickly regain his balance.
So remember what Nicko said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Maverick said:
Huh. The Norway bit was intended as humourous - I have been to Norway and loved the country very much. However, I don't believe it makes a shred of difference where I live.
If responding to a personal question on a message with a touch of humour makes me a 'troll' in your eyes, then so be it. I really couldn't care less what you perceive me as.
Oh btw, kudos for doing a little background check on my whereabouts. I am honoured that you've spent so much time worrying about me.
Thankyou.
Well, that's your opinion. And you are entitled to an opinion as much as I am. However, I thought this forum would be open to debate and deliberation on any number of issues. It seems though that unless you hold the opinion of the majority, and nod and wink at all the right moments, you are condemned as 'malicious' and 'provocative'. A destroyer of the peace, so to speak. An obvious sign of a dictatorship? What's the matter, Lefty, yr power-base suddenly slipped from under you. Was it a mistake to think that I this forum would encourage a wealth of conflicting viewpoints and so foster an environment where thought could florish unhindered?. Obviously. And I don't see why it should enrage the majority so much that I listen to and respect the thoughts of those such as Bill O'Reilly. I have been called vulgarities just for admitting to this?
Is this normal? Are you serious?
Deliberately offensive? How? The avatar I can understand - however, it was meant as ironic. Go and have a look at some other music forums, you'll find that many forum members use avatars that are provocative and even mildly offensive. Some use serial killers - Bundy, Manson, Gacey, others use black or provocative humour. I chose a pic of some dumbass white supremacist country bumpkins. It's called 'black humour'. I thought you'd 'get it'. Boy was I wrong. You'd be laughed off the board at most of the forums I've frequented, Snitchy.
I know. Do yourself a favour. Go and see the Borat 'doco'. You know the one. Hopefully you'll see where I am coming from. Or maybe you wont. Maybe your the type that sits there, cross-armed and rigid, shaking your head at the 'obscenities' taking place before you. Maybe. Perhaps you should go see the new....er...ahem...James Bond flick. Take yr mum. Good wholesome family entertainment that is. Or so I've heard.
Oh, and you had my avatar removed??? Bravo, Cheesecake!! I hope in doing so it's made yr little whitebread, safe as houses music community just that little bit safer.
Hang on!! Don't Iron Maiden themselves use artwork that some may find OFFENSIVE!?!? (Number of the beast, Killers etc...)
Chew the fat on that, Pantsy old boy!!
Urge all you want, dickhead. Hopefully there are people on this forum with their heads a little less up their asses than yr own sweet self.
Hopefully! If not, well let's just call a spade a spade and be done with it. Or have you not the wit to go another round with me.
And a 'borderline situation'?? When have I written anything that is openly racist and hateful to ANY minority?? Am I racist? Explain to me how I am. My girlfriend is Asian for fuck's sake and my best friend is Jewish/Italian. What the fuck would you know? And why am I even wasting my time with you?
YOU'RE THE SMALL MINDED ONE HERE MY FRIEND.
Get a life.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I won't waste any more time answering your shallow arguments either. I just banned your sorry arse. 
Why did everyone rushed to insult Lorax so openly? Almost everyone called him a douchebag, stupid... I thought this was a forum for debates. What's with all the insults, can't we be civilised? And how did Mav won the match when he simply banned him, instead of confronting him with arguments? That's not wining. Where is the freedom of speech in that? You banned him and took his right to express his views. He even remained pretty cool about your insults, which surprised me, since you saw him as a moron.
You call yourselves democrats.
So what if he was provocative? He saw your one-sided(mostly) democrat view of things,(I don't really have deep knowledge about USA politics, though South park among other sources, tells some interesting things) and decided to stir the discussion up a bit. And you simply threw insults. That's cowardish.
Hell, if Satan popped on this forum, I would like to hear his opinion about things and discuss it.
I've only read this thread- with his posts (Lorax not Satan) in. Maybe he said some pretty bad things somewhere else that I don't know about, but I didn't liked your reactions at all.
You call yourselves democrats.
So what if he was provocative? He saw your one-sided(mostly) democrat view of things,(I don't really have deep knowledge about USA politics, though South park among other sources, tells some interesting things) and decided to stir the discussion up a bit. And you simply threw insults. That's cowardish.
Hell, if Satan popped on this forum, I would like to hear his opinion about things and discuss it.
I've only read this thread- with his posts (Lorax not Satan) in. Maybe he said some pretty bad things somewhere else that I don't know about, but I didn't liked your reactions at all.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I advise you to read his posts in the "racial question" thread and consider the fact that his avatar was a picture of the neo-nazi band Prussian Blue.
I've just read it. I see your point now, and I apologise for the criticism in my previous post. Mav, you were right. 
So strange, when I think of it. In the Racial q. thread he is so extreme, right-winged, and I support the way Mav and the rest of you handled it. I agree that he just talked empty, and wanted to get on people's nerves.
I don't think even he believes the crap he went on about.
But in this thread he seemed so much more tolerant, and that is why I didn't got that you were simply fed up with it, and didn't wanted to spend more time arguing.
So strange, when I think of it. In the Racial q. thread he is so extreme, right-winged, and I support the way Mav and the rest of you handled it. I agree that he just talked empty, and wanted to get on people's nerves.
I don't think even he believes the crap he went on about.But in this thread he seemed so much more tolerant, and that is why I didn't got that you were simply fed up with it, and didn't wanted to spend more time arguing.
XoRRoX
Invader
Neo-nazism isn't right-winged at all. When we talk about right- or left wing, we talk about how big the state must be. And a nazist state must have a big state - actually it's more left-winged, when we have these parameters.
But when we talk politics, then you can "just" place someone in one line. Actually would a co-ordinate system be better in modern politics.
Hope you undestood my terrible english
But when we talk politics, then you can "just" place someone in one line. Actually would a co-ordinate system be better in modern politics.
Hope you undestood my terrible english
I understood your english, but failed to completely understand what you were saying.
Neo-nazism is right-wing extremism.
When we talk about right or left wing, we are referring to political orientation of a party, individual, government...
Unless you are thinking about some other form of right-left wing stance.
Neo-nazism is right-wing extremism.
XoRRoX said:
When we talk about right or left wing, we are referring to political orientation of a party, individual, government...
Unless you are thinking about some other form of right-left wing stance.
Somewhere on the web I read that the brand Lonzdale (they make sweat-shirts and stuff) is a pro neo-nazi brand, and that their products are being worn by supporters of the neo-nazi movement. I only read this info on a single site, so it could be nonsense for all I know.
I've seen a few people wearing sweat-shirts with Lonzdale written on, in my home town (Belgrade), and until now believed it was just another currently popular brand.
But, the people that wear them, and this I know for a fact, are pretty dumb, and most probably not avare of the political stance of Lonzdale.
Does anyone know something more about all this?
I've seen a few people wearing sweat-shirts with Lonzdale written on, in my home town (Belgrade), and until now believed it was just another currently popular brand.
But, the people that wear them, and this I know for a fact, are pretty dumb, and most probably not avare of the political stance of Lonzdale.
Does anyone know something more about all this?
XoRRoX
Invader
How can nazism be right-winged, when right-winged politics is about freedom from the state and the private right of ownership? Nazism has a big state, and private right of ownership is not so tolerated.
But, as i tried to say before, in modern politics, you can't just put nazism in a right spot. There is so many other things, who can change that. Therfore a co-ordinate system would be better.
Well, my english is bad, but that's why i'm here in the first place. I hope you can understand that
But, as i tried to say before, in modern politics, you can't just put nazism in a right spot. There is so many other things, who can change that. Therfore a co-ordinate system would be better.
Well, my english is bad, but that's why i'm here in the first place. I hope you can understand that
Raven
Ancient Mariner
XoRRoX said:How can nazism be right-winged, when right-winged politics is about freedom from the state and the private right of ownership? Nazism has a big state, and private right of ownership is not so tolerated.
But, as i tried to say before, in modern politics, you can't just put nazism in a right spot. There is so many other things, who can change that. Therfore a co-ordinate system would be better.
Well, my english is bad, but that's why i'm here in the first place. I hope you can understand that
Nazism is a bit of a misnomer. There is very little to do with socialism in true National Socialism. In fact, the term 'National Socialism' was coined by Hitler in order to spread the party's appeal. Most of the Nazi doctrine is Nationalism, with a heavy emphasis on scapegoating and racial supremacy, among other things.