[xgnuwdd]

[quote="krulltime"]

You sound like those naive-minded individuals who love to vote for a president (bush) and be ally to a political party that year by year are becoming one of (if not) the worst political movement in the United State history.

Can you get that through your heads naive-minded individuals (Freedom Tower)?
Where do you think most of the charity that most republicans give go to?
CHURCHES!

And we said that the muslim religion is a fundamentalist church...yeah! but we have the same in this country and they are getting ground and growing with the help of alot of money of course and no taxes to pay.
Then you get all of this town people (most town people tend to be very religious) who join the Army and do so many emberrasing things for the USA

Let me guess Freedom Tower. Are you religious(from a town)? Or are you from Texas? If not please don't call your self a New Yorker.

By the way is a shame you use the name Freedom Tower. Maybe a true new yorker will had like to use that name instead.
[\quote]

You say that people from towns are religious and join the army, and are embarasments to the country, you say that i must be religious, or from a town, or from texas. you say it is a shame i use the name freedom tower. that is obviously purposely insulting to me.

you called churhces in america fundamentalist.

you called me naive-minded twice

your apologies are nothing more than something of a show so when the moderator gets here you look less guilty. read what you wrote to me! that is offensive, insulting, and vulgar.

[bestworkothlo]

Originally Posted by MidnightRambler I wish I could have seen what he said so I could respond appropriately, but given the small bit you posted, I can probably guess what the rest was like.

Freedom Tower: Do you equate dissent with supporting terrorism? Do you believe the people who control the government right now have your best interests at heart? Do you believe all their connections to defense corporations, oil companies, and the Saudi royal family signify nothing? I'm a little curious. Maybe you know something about them that I don't.

MR, are you getting an idea of what he is like, or shall we continue to remove what little sheeps clothing he has left? Give it a rest ninjahedge. I am not trying to hide my views behind any sheeps clothing. if you ask me a question i will answer you with how i feel abotu that issue. i am not trying to fool anyone about what i do and do not support. that is your game.

[Senasivar]

Nope you are misinterpreting what I said to make it look like I said the wrong things aren't you...oh how smart.

Quotes are from Freedom Tower.

You say that people from towns are religious and join the army, and are embarasments to the country, you say that i must be religious, or from a town, or from texas. you say it is a shame i use the name freedom tower. that is obviously purposely insulting to me. you called churhces in america fundamentalist. yes people from towns do join the army and are religious...is true...do some research is not surpricing. Yeah they did some embarrasing things in Iraq and afghanistan. sadly they were mostly from towns. It is a fact.

no I am only asking if you are religious or from texas. I did not said you were...I just want it to know that is all. All you do is answer me. Yes or No.

Yes I am ashame you use that name. But that is my opinion and I did not call you a name to insult you.

Alot of churches called themselves fundametalists. Just ask them. Some call themselves moderates. Don't you know that?

you called me naive-minded twice So, that is not insulting. I think you need to open your mind more.

your apologies are nothing more than something of a show so when the moderator gets here you look less guilty. read what you wrote to me! that is offensive, insulting, and vulgar. offensive, insulting, and vulgar? You got to be kidding me. I certainly did not. I was very careful with that. Sorry but you can't convince no moderator.

[enasseneiff]

Yo, everyone:

What I said to Freedom Tower also applies to those on the other side of the issue.

You can say Bush (or Kerry) is an idiot, but you can't say a forumer is an idiot for supporting them. Unlike architectural debates, political debates are taken more personally and name calling escalates into a Giraldo Rivera talk show (remember him?).

[N1bNXuDb]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge How about this:

You are an insulting, belittling, narrow minded, fanatic, conservative, intolerant individual that seems to like to insult people out of hand with things that anyone but you interpret as insults.

If someone SOUNDS like a terrorist, you are accusing him of being one, or very similar. If someone SOUNDS like an idiot, the same is true.

By being insulted and asking for Zip to remove that remark, you just inadvertantly confirmed the persons reason for being angry and zips reason for removing it.

You are not very good at this, are you?

No, I'm not good at this becuase unlike you I don't consider it a game. You may like to argue but I am just saying what I believe in. I don't practice "debate" as a sport, rather I debate people when i disagree with them, based on what i believe in. Now, what i believe is that you are worse at debating than i am. becuase if zippy is truly a fair moderator than your post is about to get deleted.

Wrong on SO many levels there FT. First being, you insulted Zip. You insult the guys in charge, even if you ask nicely later you will find it hard to get them to see whatever point of view you want them to see. You insulted the previous poster. I insinuated by your defence that you SOUND stupid. You were insulted, thereby validating Zips choice to remove your post and his own defence of such. Your unwillingness to accept or validate this arguement either lends to the fact that you are ignorant, stubborn and/or stupid.

And the more you open your mouth (or type) the more you keep digging your own grave on this. the first sign to a mature individual is knowing when to admit they are wrong and ALSO knowing when to just stop talking.

BTW, for someone that does not believe in debate as a sport, you sure try your best to say you are better at it than anyone else. You are a better complainer, I will give you that. OK, not better. Maybe just more prolific.

You obviously have some form of a problem understanding this
"If someone SOUNDS like a terrorist, you are accusing him of being one, or very similar. If someone SOUNDS like an idiot, the same is true."

Rambler said the EXACT words i had heard terrorists say. Um, wow. So you are now yelling at him and calling him a terrorist instead of stepping back and questioning him. That is flaming someone, and that is why it was deleted. I brought that point up. It is not something i narrow-mindedly came up with, nor is it a vast right wing conspiracy. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I am not talking about RWCs. I said "You insulted him" and you did. You are bringing in all sorts of political ramifications as some sort of justification for your ill-chosen words. The game of LIFE is not played that way FT. It is a fact that bin laden and other terrorists say the things about us that rambler did. For some reason my bringing that to peoples attention not only resulted in its deletion but in your all-out personal attack on me, which i hope the moderators of the forum will cease, as they did so kindly for rambler.

Every time I have tried to nicely point out your errors and trangressions, you come back and backhand me across the face with your "I know better" form of "debate" where you freely associate things with others that have not even a tacit connection. If you would learn the difference between what I am telling you and what you are telling other people, then maybe you will do us ALL a lot of good.

But seeing how anything against you, and your beligerant insulting manner, is automatically an insult, it is impossible to be at differing opinion with you without insulting you.

also, calling me intolerant is laughable. all i did was point out a true fact.There are false facts? i compared ramblers speech to that of a terrorists'. I am pointing out a real-life fact, which you obviously don't want to hear. Man, you seem to be so hung up on calling MR a terrorist, don't you? Every other sentance keeps calling him a terrorist. You have dropped the "sounds like" and have inadvertantly let us all know that you regard him with the same respect as you do the terrorists. Unless you LIKE the terrorists, you are insulting him.

How many times does this need to be said?Why are you so afraid of the truth? You have to attack me and jump down my throat for telling hte truth? besides, zippy deleted it, and you brought it back up again. If he deleted it, why do you keep bringing it back up? so whether it was offending or not is no longer a matter for you to worry about. Is this a last word competition? If it is no longer something for me to worry about, why are you so worried about it? But your obvious personal attacks on me aren't going to do anything but get you in trouble.

Again with the threats. You insult people around you, and you get your stuffed banned, but yet you ignore anybody elses words and try to turn it back around. "You think I did something wrong by calling him a terrorist, look he called me stupid!!!!!"

Geez man, you keep shooting yourself in the foot so many times on this. Let it GO already!

I would also respond to the rest of what you said but I'm not even going to bother.Because you can't. All your arguments and positions have been refuted and you have nothing left. You need to seriously get your head out of the sand on this. You do not seem to be a nasty or malicious person, but definitely naieve and very narrow minded. Seriously dude, try to read more OUTSIDE the news articles that go through the trouble of making your opinions for you! Obviously you cannot have a civilized debate without trying to create a real crisis. whatever insulting things i may have said about rambler were inadvertantly insulting, or insulting in a way i did not realize at the time. they were since deleted. when i compared ramblers speech to that of a terrorist it was becuase it was the same!! but you know what, i did not mean it to be a huge insult. i can see how it may be, but it was not intended to insult, only to prove a point.OK, stop there. that is the POINT I have been trying to get to you. And your refusal to acnowledge it has been the reason for my reply posts. The statement that comes after this one is unneeded and looking for another arguement. you did not need to "however" justify your position. that is NOT a way to come to an amicable solution. You inadvertantly insulted him, and now you are "inadvertantly" keeping the flame going however, you are not even debating the issues anymore. now you are just trying to create a problem here by INTENTIONALLY insulting me. my insults, if they were that, were unintentional, or at least their primary goal was not to insult. the only goal i can see in your last post was the goal of insulting me. Calling me a narrow minded fanatic conservative. I want to hear what zippy says about this one. OK, that is the 3rd time you call on Zippy, like somehow you are the poor injured individual. Dude, you "inadvertantly" called someone a killer. I pointed that out to you and it has taken this long for you to even acnowledge it.

If that is not stubborn I don't know what is.

You really have to learn. Your "debates" are arguments or complaints, not postings looking for discourse.

If you find that insulting, too bad. It is the truth (you remember that word that you kept using). It is a fact (that one too).

>sigh<

Maybe you will learn, maybe not. We can only hope.

[Crundaangerge]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge Originally Posted by MidnightRambler I wish I could have seen what he said so I could respond appropriately, but given the small bit you posted, I can probably guess what the rest was like.

Freedom Tower: Do you equate dissent with supporting terrorism? Do you believe the people who control the government right now have your best interests at heart? Do you believe all their connections to defense corporations, oil companies, and the Saudi royal family signify nothing? I'm a little curious. Maybe you know something about them that I don't.

MR, are you getting an idea of what he is like, or shall we continue to remove what little sheeps clothing he has left? Give it a rest ninjahedge. I am not trying to hide my views behind any sheeps clothing. if you ask me a question i will answer you with how i feel abotu that issue. i am not trying to fool anyone about what i do and do not support. that is your game. No, but you come in saying "poor me I am being insulted" and things like you are only feeling for the victims, but then you are very cold hearted to those around you that disagree with what you post!

I am not in 100% agreeance with Krull, he seems to be rather pissed at some of the things you posted, but I understand where he is coming from.


Bottom line is, the war on Iraq has nothing, NOTHING to do with 9-11 other than the propaganda that was used to get public support.

It was a strategic move. It was a mostly secular oppressed nation that seemed to be violating UN resolutions that had its own viable exportable resource. If conquered, it would provide little, if any, fundamentalist resistance from within its own borders, and it would be relatively inexpensive to convert and set up as a self supporting US ally.

We needed that there.

North Korea is not a financially viable long term or short term investment. And Kim is a certifiable looney. So there is no telling what we would have gotten into there.

The only thing that I have objections to now about the whole thing is the reasons we were given for going in. I have no problem accepting an argument once irrefutable proof is given, but when the proof that HAS been given is all shown to be faulty or outright worng, it is hard to back anything.

So whatever...

[acneman]

i don't see the purpose in responding here anymore. the topic was supposed to be on the draft. it has gone too far off that topic. you have proved that it is yourself who is not here for discourse - you have proved it by going so far to try and prove me wrong, etc.

Obviously we have different views, and perhaps when i hear certain radical views i respond rather LOUDLY but it is no reason to start complaining about my requests to be treated with some respect.

So just for the sake of ending aggrevation, i won't post in this draft topic until it gets back on topic, and talks about the draft!

[treawittelf]

i don't see the purpose in responding here anymore. the topic was supposed to be on the draft. it has gone too far off that topic. you have proved that it is yourself who is not here for discourse - you have proved it by going so far to try and prove me wrong, etc.

Obviously we have different views, and perhaps when i hear certain radical views i respond rather LOUDLY but it is no reason to start complaining about my requests to be treated with some respect.

So just for the sake of ending aggrevation, i won't post in this draft topic until it gets back on topic, and talks about the draft!

If you see no need to respond, why do you keep responding?

You keep insulting me by saying I am not here for discourse right after a post I placed on the reasons for going to war in the first place (which is one of the reasons why a lot of people do not want to go to war if there was a draft for this one).

Again, you are arguing a moot point by trying to say, basically "You are wrong and I am not talking to you anymore".

You wanted an explanation, and I gave it to you. You want to know why people are getting angry, I told you.

And the funny thing is, you still have not said why you will not sign up BEFORE a draft in the first place.

Most people who say they are all for the draft are usually the ones that say that they will go if asked, but will not go otherwise. they do not give any reasons for not going now other than the fact that, as you pointed out, that that was not the question.

This is usually because they are uncomfortable about the subject and they don't want to answer why they have not already joined up for fear that will somehow look unpatriotic or lazy.

So the question is raised again, without looking to insult, is why are you so ready to join the army IF there was a draft, but so unwilling to answer the question of whether or not you would joing if there WAS no draft in order to provide support for a war you are in favor of?

[KRbGA0Bg]

Originally Posted by Freedom Tower i don't see the purpose in responding here anymore. the topic was supposed to be on the draft. it has gone too far off that topic. you have proved that it is yourself who is not here for discourse - you have proved it by going so far to try and prove me wrong, etc.

Obviously we have different views, and perhaps when i hear certain radical views i respond rather LOUDLY but it is no reason to start complaining about my requests to be treated with some respect.

So just for the sake of ending aggrevation, i won't post in this draft topic until it gets back on topic, and talks about the draft!

If you see no need to respond, why do you keep responding?

You keep insulting me by saying I am not here for discourse right after a post I placed on the reasons for going to war in the first place (which is one of the reasons why a lot of people do not want to go to war if there was a draft for this one).

Again, you are arguing a moot point by trying to say, basically "You are wrong and I am not talking to you anymore".

You wanted an explanation, and I gave it to you. You want to know why people are getting angry, I told you.

And the funny thing is, you still have not said why you will not sign up BEFORE a draft in the first place.

Most people who say they are all for the draft are usually the ones that say that they will go if asked, but will not go otherwise. they do not give any reasons for not going now other than the fact that, as you pointed out, that that was not the question.

This is usually because they are uncomfortable about the subject and they don't want to answer why they have not already joined up for fear that will somehow look unpatriotic or lazy.

So the question is raised again, without looking to insult, is why are you so ready to join the army IF there was a draft, but so unwilling to answer the question of whether or not you would joing if there WAS no draft in order to provide support for a war you are in favor of? This is exactly why I told you I would not respond. I already answered that question. I told you that I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO ARMY RECRUITERS. I am considering joining believe it or not! (read a few posts back) My question is why does this matter to you? Also I don't believe I said anywhere that I was "for" a draft. I do not believe we need a draft right now. We DO need to pull troops out of places where they are spread too thin and put them in more important places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, but a draft is not necesary right now. I never said a draft is currently necesary. We don't CURRENTLY need one. However, like I said, if we did NEED a draft, if the army was absoultely stretched WAY too thin, then I'd support it. not only would i support it, but i would go if called. Why do my arguments get less credit with you just because i am not currently enlisted? And are you suggesting that if drafted i would not go? That is 100% wrong.

[Hinigyday]

The point about enlisting vs the draft is so obvious, even the cat looking over my shoulder gets it.

Bush has likened the war in Iraq to World War II. If a person supports Bush, it is assumed that he believes what Bush says. Thus, Iraq War supporters of fighting age should be flocking to recruiting offices to enlist - AS WAS DONE IN WWII. When America entered the war, its standing army was ranked 12th in the world.

You stated a few posts back that the draft is not needed because the country is "not in mortal danger." That is not the exclusive reason for a draft. The last time the draft was instituted in the US, the only country in mortal danger was South Vietnam.

Drafts are instituted because there are not enough soldiers. When reservists, who are not trained for intensive combat and generally have greater civilian responsibilities than enlistees, get called up for a second extended tour - THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SOLDIERS.

You won't see a draft soon for only one reason. It would be political suicide for Bush.

So the point about enlisting is that anyone who, not only criticizes another for not supporting the war, but calls their patriotism into question, should already be in uniform.

But I understand you are going to correct that error. Send us a letter from boot camp.

The cat nods.