We're winning Iraq.

[Karmashock]

Recently elections were held for the new iraqi consitution and it passed with only two sunni provinces voting it down while the other two strongely supported it.


Articles on the topic can be provided upon request... bitches.


Booyah, Karmashock.

[eXoRciSt]

karma shock, not to be rude, but do you copy paste this thread to about 2 6 forums?

oh and hey, miss talkin to ya :)

[Karmashock]

karma shock, not to be rude, but do you copy paste this thread to about 2 6 forums?

oh and hey, miss talkin to ya :)
no... I wrote that just for you... and this is the only board I've put that post on.


Where else have you seen me post this? :lol:


no point looking, I haven't put it anywhere else... what are you talking about?

[omegachiken]

hes trying to make you feel specail demon :lol:

[The Dark Messenger]

Demon, thou art his bitch ^_^

[allied56]

if i was america, lets use a gc2 situation shall we karma,
id make 4 hellfires, 6 sheilds 4 engis 2 thumper and 6 artys,
say iraq was NSA, wonder whod get pwned

[Juggalo]

if i was america, lets use a gc2 situation shall we karma,
id make 4 hellfires, 6 sheilds 4 engis 2 thumper and 6 artys,
say iraq was NSA, wonder whod get pwned

:blink: Que?

[Quietus]

if i was america, lets use a gc2 situation shall we karma,
id make 4 hellfires, 6 sheilds 4 engis 2 thumper and 6 artys,
say iraq was NSA, wonder whod get pwned

16 siege and a few scouts would win. :)

[Polaris]

Recently elections were held for the new iraqi consitution and it passed with only two sunni provinces voting it down while the other two strongely supported it.


Articles on the topic can be provided upon request... bitches.


Booyah, Karmashock.
despite the war on terrorism, i think we're fighting the liberal media more--and desperately losing

[Karmashock]

despite the war on terrorism, i think we're fighting the liberal media more--and desperately losing
Hardly, their viewship is falling almost every day. Their old media guns are bleeding to death.

[Polaris]

and yet the fawning american public is still entranced

[Papa Smurf]

lol @ this thread

[RazielDemon]

Ah great! Now there have been elections all the insurgents will just give up and go away, the iraqi military will be able to keep the peace on its own and it will be a a free and democratic country for all time :D


The Bush administration has determined that Iraqi elections won't end the Sunni insurgency.

A Defense Department report said the Sunni insurgency would continue despite the referendum for an Iraqi constitution, which took place on Saturday. Iraqis were also scheduled to vote for a National Assembly in December 2005.

"Successful elections will not likely change the foreign fighters' strategy," the Pentagon report to Congress, entitled "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," said. "The Iraqi rejectionists -- particularly those who are Sunni -- may, nonetheless, lose some of their support base as the political process advances."

[Lord_Ulrik]

lol @ this thread

dito

How stupid is this thread please ??

War on communism ----> war on terrorism -----> war on ??? Whats next ??

The military answer is no answer, but i guess this wont be realized by most ppl.

[Shadow]

dito

How stupid is this thread please ??

War on communism ----> war on terrorism -----> war on ??? Whats next ??

The military answer is no answer, but i guess this wont be realized by most ppl.

War on me maybe :errr: :errr: :errr: :errr:

[Lord_Ulrik]

War on me maybe :errr: :errr: :errr: :errr:


LoL, would be like the war on terrorism :D

You cant hit, what you cant see

Shadows/"terrorists" ;)

[Karmashock]

and yet the fawning american public is still entranced
Then you're as fooled by the media as most people are... Of course the media is going to try and hide how things are going against them and if you don't use other sources to verify their statments of agreement, then you'll not see it.

Their whole sick empire is dying.
================================================== =====
Ah great! Now there have been elections all the insurgents will just give up and go away, the iraqi military will be able to keep the peace on its own and it will be a a free and democratic country for all time :D
That's the difference between "we won" and "we're winning".

I said "we're winning".


This has been a lesson in the english language, by karmashock.

All further lessons will be either be paid for in USD or sponsored by cutting insults.
================================================== =====
dito

How stupid is this thread please ??

War on communism ----> war on terrorism -----> war on ??? Whats next ??

The military answer is no answer, but i guess this wont be realized by most ppl.
Not as stupid as your post. When you have a point or comment worth listening to, don't hesitate to post. If all you have to offer is the above, then please snap your keyboard in half before wasting our time with this drivel. We all know that every time something goes well in Iraq it embarresses you and your pathetic little political faction. But this sort of tactic is really beneith even you.

================================================== ==
LoL, would be like the war on terrorism :D

You cant hit, what you cant see

Shadows/"terrorists" ;)
We've got just about all the origional 9/11 perps except bin ladin... and that fool is sitting in a dark cave dressed like a woman... so say what you will. :lol:


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Polaris]

Then you're as fooled by the media as most people are... Of course the media is going to try and hide how things are going against them and if you don't use other sources to verify their statments of agreement, then you'll not see it.

Their whole sick empire is dying.

it may be dying, but i cannot deny that everywhere i look i see the ignorance of my countrymen from their mindless obsequiousness to the television. that makes me sick.

also sounds a lot like The Pedestrian and Fahrenheit 451

[RazielDemon]

Ah great! Now there have been elections all the insurgents will just give up and go away, the iraqi military will be able to keep the peace on its own and it will be a a free and democratic country for all time

That's the difference between "we won" and "we're winning".

I said "we're winning".

This has been a lesson in the english language, by karmashock.

All further lessons will be either be paid for in USD or sponsored by cutting insults.


Appart from being genuinely funny, that was just plain wrong.

The difference between "you're winning" and "you've won" is the difference between the showing of some progress towards these goals: lessened insurgency, the iraqi military and police being able to stand on their own and iraqi's being able to take part in free elections WITHOUT being at risk of getting blown to smitherenes by mortar fire; the difference between that and actualy achieving them.

Now there's a constitution, that's all going to happen is it? The military is going to work harder at stopping militants? The militants arn't going to mortar/bomb the december elections?

Untill something is done about the source of the insurgents iraq will be in the same situation, regardless of it's current government.

When a democraticaly elected government is in place you expect the militants to say: oh well, we tried our best, now we give up? All they'll see is the replacement of american led interim leadership to full time american-puppet-leadership. It doesn't matter if that is in fact the case or not, it's what they'll think. These are suicide bombers, they'll blow themselves up regardless.


The constitution has done about as much good for 'helping you win' as declaring 'the end of major combat opperations' did.

[Karmashock]

it may be dying, but i cannot deny that everywhere i look i see the ignorance of my countrymen from their mindless obsequiousness to the television. that makes me sick.

also sounds a lot like The Pedestrian and Fahrenheit 451
there have always been tools and there will always be tools. The only way for free minds to over come them is to know they're not alone. Once we know that, we have the upper hand.

Do we know?... I do...
==========================================
Appart from being genuinely funny, that was just plain wrong.

The difference between "you're winning" and "you've won" is the difference between the showing of some progress towards these goals: lessened insurgency, the iraqi military and police being able to stand on their own and iraqi's being able to take part in free elections WITHOUT being at risk of getting blown to smitherenes by mortar fire; the difference between that and actualy achieving them.
You really shouldn't take your understanding of the language this seriously. It is more flexable then you realize.

Why don't you do us all a favor and stop pretending to know what you're talking about and just do your best to understand what I'm trying to say.


That way you won't waste any more of my time or yours with this boring bullshit.

Kay? (a phonetic abrevation of "OK".)

Great.

Now there's a constitution, that's all going to happen is it?
Ah, see... you should really have asked for more information. This is the problem, demon. Too much telling and not enough asking. You see, two of the four Sunni provinces voted overwhelmingly for the new consitution. That's good. Those people are board. That means that the area of opposition is now contained to just two sunni provinces and the Iraqi government is gettings stronger all the time.



Look, we are doing better and better all the time with this... every one of these actions is just one step further toward completion. We might even finish this during Bush's term which was previously uncertain.


If you just look as major stats, it's all good news. We are winning.


The military is going to work harder at stopping militants?
The iraqi government is stronger and getting stronger. Soon they'll be able to take care of this all on their own.

Untill something is done about the source of the insurgents iraq will be in the same situation, regardless of it's current government.
Of course not, soon the Iraqi government will be too strong to be distrupted by this sort of thing. Then all teh insurgents can do is kill people. Their ability to create chaos will be gone.

When a democraticaly elected government is in place you expect the militants to say: oh well, we tried our best, now we give up?
I expect the iraqi people to take over, this should be obvious to you.

The constitution has done about as much good for 'helping you win' as declaring 'the end of major combat opperations' did.
This is true. However, what you don't understand is that "end of major combat opperations" was a real and valid statement. We said that when Saddam had been beaten. He was beaten at that point. So who is beaten now that the consitution has been signed in to law? If someone wins, then someone loses... ;)

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[eXoRciSt]

We're all going to hell.

[Karmashock]

oh?... why is that now, pumpkin?

[eXoRciSt]

Becuz 1 said s0

[Karmashock]

about the only interesting thing you've brought to the table thus far has been your avatars... :)

[eXoRciSt]

yeah its awsome, michael jackson would be proud

[Spulm]

shut up

[2biT]

You where also 'winning' Vitenam and look how that turned out.

[Critta]

How do you win a guerilla war?

Would love to see your "evidence" of how this war is being won Karma! :D

[MVB]

I don't know if we can win or lose a guerilla war. On a one for one basis, the insurgents have been horribly mutilated. It is laughable how pisspoor they have been trounced. Doesn't mean more don't come, however.

Insurgencies with staying power derive said power from the mandate of the people. They are supported now by the presence of Americans. Should the Iraqi people as a true whole decide they wish for peace and democracy, peace and democracy will happen. Should they reject peace and democracy, it won't happen. The American military has "won" everything it has involved itself in, militarily. Whether Iraq becomes a free, democratic nation, however, has very little to do with America. It will be either a win OR loss for IRAQ, not America, when the result finally plays out.

Ofc, the liberals/etc. will focus on Iraq won, not America, if it ends in freedom, and will focus on America lost, and fuxed Iraq in the process, if it ends in "failure."

[DrunkenUno]

it may be dying, but i cannot deny that everywhere i look i see the ignorance of my countrymen from their mindless obsequiousness to the television. that makes me sick.

also sounds a lot like The Pedestrian and Fahrenheit 451

rofl @ you trying to use big words to sound smart

[MVB]

rofl at Drunk trying to brush off the fact that he had to use google.com to decipher them

[eXoRciSt]

OMG

WTF

PWNED

[Karmashock]

You where also 'winning' Vitenam and look how that turned out.
That's what you idiots said about Afganistan. Said we'd get bogged down like the russians and it would be an endless blood bath.

Wasn't... quick pwn, followed by an interm government that is so far stable.

Then you tried that stupid line again when we went to engage Saddam. Said his fighters would fight us in the streets for years. You were wrong again. Saddam's fighters were done with a few months after the major fighting was over... and that only took a few weeks.

Now you're trying it again with foreign insugents? Go for it... just know you're headed for three out of three here.


Vietnam won't happen again. I doubt very much that you know more about that war then what you saw in a few movies. If you had studied what went wrong and why it was as bad as it was... you'd know that Iraq has no chance of turning into vietnam.


Iraq is different and the US is different today then it was then.
=================================================
Ofc, the liberals/etc. will focus on Iraq won, not America, if it ends in freedom, and will focus on America lost, and fuxed Iraq in the process, if it ends in "failure."
Or pretend Iraq never happened if it's a huge success. So far that's what they're actually doing. Every time there is good news, they pretend it didn't happen. The news just goes dark on the subject. But the second someone dies or there are some bloody pictures the whole feed lights up like nothing was more important in the world.


It's biased news coverage at its worst. The only good thing to come of that is that it's totally obvious that htey're doing it. Which just means it'll be that much longer before that whole sick media cabal is crushed under the weight of it's own malice.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Critta]

Then you tried that stupid line again when we went to engage Saddam. Said his fighters would fight us in the streets for years. You were wrong again. Saddam's fighters were done with a few months after the major fighting was over... and that only took a few weeks.

THat's strange, because there are still Saddam loyalist groups operating in Iraq, why else would the Green Zone have been mortared on the first day of Saddams trial after a Baath party request if there weren't any? Why do I keep hearing reports of attacks by Saddam Loyalists attacks, or them working in league with other insurgent groups?

Why indeed does this report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/post_saddam_iraq/html/2.stm) show definite ereas where they are attacking people if they are not attacking people and this report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm#saddam) giving some details of where their money and weapons come from. You can deny they are fighting if you want, however I think you'll find you're wrong here.

I think you'll find that you're wrong on that one Karma.. so you well may be heading for 2/3 :P


Or pretend Iraq never happened if it's a huge success. So far that's what they're actually doing. Every time there is good news, they pretend it didn't happen. The news just goes dark on the subject. But the second someone dies or there are some bloody pictures the whole feed lights up like nothing was more important in the world.

And how is that any different to the way the media treat any other subject? Blood, guts and death are sensational, they sell papers, they get people worked up. It's all a load of crap really.

Ahh, I dunno, I've seen some stories that seem to give some hope for the future of Iraq, but the problem is that there are more people dying in Iraq per day now than there were when the war was on.

[Karmashock]

THat's strange, because there are still Saddam loyalist groups operating in Iraq, why else would the Green Zone have been mortared on the first day of Saddams trial after a Baath party request if there weren't any? Why do I keep hearing reports of attacks by Saddam Loyalists attacks, or them working in league with other insurgent groups?
It is primarily the insurgent groups fueled by Iranian money and men.


Iran has a vested interest in a weak Iraq. Iraq has been Iran's enemy for generations. They want Iraq at their knees so they can do what they please.


The US however has an interest in a strong Iraq both because the US is now seen as responsible for what happens there... and to balance Iran. Russia has an interest in a weak Iraq and a strong Iran because that will give russia more power in the region while taking it away from the US and Europe.

The politics of the situation are fairly clear. The saddam loyalists take their power entirely from the iranians at this point. It's where they're getting the explosives and the fresh meat.



I think you'll find that you're wrong on that one Karma.. so you well may be heading for 2/3
I think the best thing about this statement is that over the next ten years as it becomes very clear that the US secured these areas properly, you're going to burn a little inside for comments like this... it will probably make you hate americans and republican americans even more... but then defeat is always a bitter treat. ;)



And how is that any different to the way the media treat any other subject? Blood, guts and death are sensational, they sell papers, they get people worked up. It's all a load of crap really.
When we went into Bosnia the media had a totally different additude. The media is recognized by most at this point as being biased. We are beyond the point where it can be denied.

there are more people dying in Iraq per day now than there were when the war was on.
That's because the first half of the war was the US fighting... and we respect human life.

[Tank0]

yay another "usa number 1" thread by karma


a) read back on the bosnian conflict . usa was just as impotent under bill's leadership as the european countries . sure you did some bombruns but except for kosovo it didnt change a single thing , the three parties stopped fighting after they where done with what they wanted to do . divide territory and "clense" it . i ve got several friends who did several tours in former yougoslavia as peacekeepers and they all say the same , they laughed with the un , us and the eu ( ask the dutch , they deported (read massacred) 10000 men right from under their nozes )

b) today i saw a australian documentary about US troops in afghanistan .
i can understand that they dont take chances in an ambush and that some civilians get hurt who look just the same as the taliban . they tried to win the local heart by transporting a man and a kid to a hospital but what i saw next was shocking .

i grinned when they played loud rock music to draw the taliban in a fight
i can even understand the messages they send towards the mountains comparing them to dogs , women and everything else the taliban despise .

but publicly burning taliban corpses with their heads heading west is fubar .
it is the near to the worst thing you can do to a muslim and i can imagine that moderate moslims will be repulsed and maybe join the taliban .


to me this is more proof that the us goverment has a total lack of respect for the second biggest religion on the planet . lawfull soldiers get punished for following guidelines while bush and his neocons push the limits .

at this moment the US isnt safer then on 12 september 2001 but a lot more muslims hate the US . when bin laden declared war on the us in 1999 the laughed "you and what army" but bush has made sure bin laden is getting his army faster then planned ( educated brits are blowing up their own countrymen ffs : fyi 7/7/5)


c) the only positive thing is the palestinian situation and one could argue that the death of arafat was the deciding factor but without bush demanding israel to withdraw they still wouldnt have left .

d) iraq = civil war - training iraqi troops to fight for themselves after that the vietnam scenario will follow . the rebels will crush the iraqi democratic troops in a few years and iraq will be the next killing fields for a decade or so

e) iran : instead of continuing the defrosting process by the next generation the public has now again turned to an hardcore muslim leader as president and to strengthen his position he started the nuclear program again


WOT = 4-1 for bin laden

[Dibujante]

Hey, Karma, the U.S. can win anything. Seriously. It just needs to set its own goals. Will "victory" be defined by voting a constitution into place? Done! Will "victory" be defined by reaching a certain body-count? Done! Will victory be defined by eating that last jelly donut? Done! USA! USA! USA!

Afghanistan is shit. Karzai recieved little of the reconstruction money promised to him and now has control over no area outside of Kabul. Afghanistan has mostly gone back to warlords, taliban and anarchy. But hey, it's gone from the media.

I find it amusing that people constantly reiterate that the media is so "liberal". No proof is necessary when you only say it to people who agree with you. I guess because reporters don't drop down on their knees and give George Bush impromptu blow-jobs they're obviously hateful liberals =/

I read a report a while ago that indicated that a series of LexusNexus searches indicated two things: liberals got slightly more air-time than conservatives and conservatives got a slightly greater percentage of their airtime as "positive airtime" rather than "negative airtime", i.e. pictures of George Bush signing laws or making speeches rather than speculation about his intelligence failures pre-9/11.

But hey, if, in your small minds, repetition-of-hate > formulation-of-policy, keep it up.

[Karmashock]

yay another "usa number 1" thread by karma
Why not when everyone else just posts doom and gloom?

You forget tank0 that I am largely reacting to the negative additude in this forum. If you were more positive, then I wouldn't feel the need to balance things with such posts.

a) read back on the bosnian conflict . usa was just as impotent under bill's leadership as the european countries . sure you did some bombruns but except for kosovo it didnt change a single thing , the three parties stopped fighting after they where done with what they wanted to do . divide territory and "clense" it . i ve got several friends who did several tours in former yougoslavia as peacekeepers and they all say the same , they laughed with the un , us and the eu ( ask the dutch , they deported (read massacred) 10000 men right from under their nozes )
It's kind of funny that with that statement you've revealed that I remember more about it then you do.


First, the US didn't want to be involved AT ALL.

Second, Europe asked us to come and eventually we did.

Third, it was OUR military that gave YOUR force any credibility. Prior to the US showing up the bosnians were basically ignoring your pathetic force.

Fourth, the security on the ground was largely EUROPE"S JOB, not ours. We were primarily air cover/support.
b) today i saw a australian documentary about US troops in afghanistan .
i can understand that they dont take chances in an ambush and that some civilians get hurt who look just the same as the taliban . they tried to win the local heart by transporting a man and a kid to a hospital but what i saw next was shocking .

i grinned when they played loud rock music to draw the taliban in a fight
i can even understand the messages they send towards the mountains comparing them to dogs , women and everything else the taliban despise .

but publicly burning taliban corpses with their heads heading west is fubar .
it is the near to the worst thing you can do to a muslim and i can imagine that moderate moslims will be repulsed and maybe join the taliban .
What you and people like you have yet to realize... is this is war. WAR. You do remember what war is don't you? Your whole continent has burned twice in the last century with it.

That said, I'm sure instances like that are isolated as were the prison abuses. These things do not happen with pentagon approval.



If you can't understand that no organization could possibly control every little insident from happening then you're not being reasonable.

We can all appologize to the muslims of the world for the insult which is only intented towards the taliban... but then the people that yell at us rarely want appologies... they want blood or gold.



to me this is more proof that the us goverment has a total lack of respect for the second biggest religion on the planet . lawfull soldiers get punished for following guidelines while bush and his neocons push the limits .
You can't get punished for following guidlines. We have a military justice system with some credibility.

at this moment the US isnt safer then on 12 september 2001 but a lot more muslims hate the US . when bin laden declared war on the us in 1999 the laughed "you and what army" but bush has made sure bin laden is getting his army faster then planned ( educated brits are blowing up their own countrymen ffs : fyi 7/7/5)
The only thing that is changing is that people aren't hiding what they've always been. Both the US and Europe have enemies amongst them... and have for some time. We didnt' put them in your country and we didn't make them radicals. They were before we did anything.


c) the only positive thing is the palestinian situation and one could argue that the death of arafat was the deciding factor but without bush demanding israel to withdraw they still wouldnt have left .
You do know that the US initially demanded that arafat be removed... but europe made a huge stink about it... we were going to ok his capture/execution...

oh well... could have happened 10 years earlier...

d) iraq = civil war - training iraqi troops to fight for themselves after that the vietnam scenario will follow . the rebels will crush the iraqi democratic troops in a few years and iraq will be the next killing fields for a decade or so
and when that doesn't happen you'll be eating humble pie :lol:

e) iran : instead of continuing the defrosting process by the next generation the public has now again turned to an hardcore muslim leader as president and to strengthen his position he started the nuclear program again
THE PUBLIC HAS NO SAY IN WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS!!! DO YOU KNOW NOTHING!!! IT"S A RELIGIOUS DICTATORSHIP AND HAS BEEN FOR DECADES!!! ANY INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY HAS BE YOUR IMAGINATION![/quote]


WOT = 4-1 for bin laden
Hard to say when he's at the bottom of a cave dressed like a woman.:lol:
================================================== ===

I find it amusing that people constantly reiterate that the media is so "liberal".
You are offically deaf.

DEAF.


They took a fucking poll. A POLL!!! A FUCKING GOD DAMN POLL. You know one of those things where people vote and say what they believe? Yeah, they took one. A poll. One more time because you're SOOO fucking deaf. A POLL.

Now what do you think the outcome was? 70 percent democrat, bitch. 70 percent liberal. 70 percent pro your side. 70 percent against mine. 70 percent 70 percent 70 percent.


End over done.


I am typically not this harsh, but when you say something so rediculiously toolish, I HAVE NO CHOICE. You'd have to be a complete and total stooge of the media to not recognize some very basic political biases. To say nothing of the ownership structure.


"Oh but fox news and rush limbaugh!!" what of it? How long have htey been around and what percentage of the pie do they make up? Please.


I can accept matters of opinion, but straight up blind stupidity is really beyond what I'm willing to deal with. I hope we don't go back and forth into some long and ultimately boring flame fest... because I don't hate you, dib. You've just been fed so much bullshit that you spontaniously vomit it back up...


Love and peace, Karmashock.


For verification, you can go to this site here... it is a biased site... meaning it has an agenda and is not uninvolved... however it does have links to non baised info. Which is how I want you to look at that site. Just a site with some links to what I'm actually talking about.
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp


Do not EVER tell me the media isn't biased unless you have some proof. To say it isn't is an insult to what I see every fucking time I turn on the TV or open the newspaper. It's an insult to my intellegence and anyone that just read what you said. The bias is OBVIOUS and ONGOING.

[Dibujante]

You are offically deaf.

DEAF.


They took a fucking poll. A POLL!!! A FUCKING GOD DAMN POLL. You know one of those things where people vote and say what they believe? Yeah, they took one. A poll. One more time because you're SOOO fucking deaf. A POLL.

Now what do you think the outcome was? 70 percent democrat, bitch. 70 percent liberal. 70 percent pro your side. 70 percent against mine. 70 percent 70 percent 70 percent.

End over done.Yes, because obviously someone who would vote for John Kerry is incapable of being a relatively unbiased observer. Maybe conservatives believe that someone cannot separate their personal politics from their work but that is by no means proven.

I took a quick look at that link. I've seen it before, it's kind of amusing. However, all of the evidence on the link you provided indicated that journalists voted Democrat more than they voted Republican. That doesn't actually demonstrate your point. What would demonstrate it (and what I would concede to) would be a survey of headlines in major publications. This site simply points out stories that it claims are biased when, in fact, the act of pointing out those stories is also suspect of bias. If I only point out the one whole story in the newspaper where the news was biased towards republicans, would that prove pro-republican bias? I doubt. Good surveys exist but I haven't seen any supporting the "democrats are running the news media" story.

And in conclusion, I am not a Democrat. "70 percent pro my side"? That's bullshit. You're demonstrating why you think the media is biased: if it doesn't agree with you it's obviously in the pocket of the opposition. Just like me, who, after a conspicuous and repeated failure to agree with you, must be a Democrat.

P.S. The media bias is as obvious to you as the deleterious and destructive effects of capitalism are to me. Think about it.

[Psy]

I can accept matters of opinion, but straight up blind stupidity is really beyond what I'm willing to deal with.

then stop posting, looking in mirror, listening to own voice etc.

Considering I have first hand experience in some of your "topics" and not some delusion induced by US brainwashing through media and a sad education system, I too see stupidity here, just not where you think it is.

[Dibujante]

I can accept matters of opinion, but straight up blind stupidity is really beyond what I'm willing to deal with.
Huzzah! Do you hear that, Psy? We're officially stupid! Our insipid minds can tremble before the genius of Karmashock, whose compelling and incisive comments, especially those demonstrating that Iran wants to nuke the West with the whole world watching, continue to flabbergast and confound us.

I wonder what stupid tastes like?

[Tank0]

to karma :

dont get me wrong i am for everything the US says it stands for but as long as you continue your glorified view on things i am forced to get you back to reality . we both seem to do the same , this is just action reaction , no worries <3


a) you are correct eventually you came and did some bombruns , but unlike WWI and WWII you didnt help decide it . After the US showed up the bosnians still were basically ignoring our pathetic forces. do you think you can stop a guerilla army with a stealthfighter? they stopped because they where done sad but true .their own population got tiered of the war and the eu/US offered fast acceptance if they gave up some major players who wanted to keep going

b)sure many things happen in a war and i dont realise war is hell but the only fucking difference between a group of terrorists and a lawfull army is discipline . you keep believing they are all isolated incidents but i strongly believe its part of US policy . its so shocking its not only affecting muslims , you are doing the same things as the russians did there 20 years ago ( few years after the lost there they collapsed )

"The only thing that is changing is that people aren't hiding what they've always been" this is utter bullshit and i honoustly expected a better respons then that from you . even mothere theresa would have killed people if you pushed the right buttons

c) true but without the loss of support for the israeli colonies the result wouldnt have been the same .execution would just have made him a marter

d) i honoustly hope i am wrong on this one , fyi vietnamees tribes who supported the US are still being exterminated in vietnam atm

e) well before 9/11 iran was slowly growing tiered of strong islam laws and the elected a prez who fought the ayatollahs for more liberty and everybody expected the new election to continue on this road , the suprise was big for refugees here when they heard the news that the muslim candidate won .remember that kids who where born after the revolution never knew liberties and that genearation is slowly getting into power ( 20something )



during the long march the leader of the chinese communist party spend years sleeping in fields sometimes eating mud to fill his stumach but after a decade he took power and his party is still controlling 1 billion human beings with a total lack of respect for human rights . ffs your own independency war should teach you not to underestimate a bunch of wacky yahoos with strong believes ( disclaimer i do not wish to compare the founding fathers to the taliban whatsoever)

[Psy]

Yeh dibs but i stopped reading at:

Location LA

and

What you and people like you have yet to realize... is this is war. WAR. You do remember what war is don't you? Your whole continent has burned twice in the last century with it.

and

I am typically not this harsh, but when you say something so rediculiously toolish, I HAVE NO CHOICE. You'd have to be a complete and total stooge of the media to not recognize some very basic political biases. To say nothing of the ownership structure.


And then I started laughing.

Karma if anyone has a negative attitude on these forums it is you and yes you are typicaly that harsh the minute someone provides an opposing view. And no matter how well supported or thought out, your recourse is to attack persons intelligence and flame them into leaving the topic.

I wonder how much War you have seen in LA. My place of birth is Belgrade. Also I have happened to enjoy my mom working in Lybia when US decided Ghadaffi is a terrorist too and displayed some nice missile fireworks overhedad.

Karma get a clue you are not an expert on worldly goings on - at best you regurgitate some bullshit media stance and are blissful in patriotic ignorance.

And if you are so passionate about most of this BS i read - go enlist at least this forum will stop overheating.

[Dibujante]

He's just a True Believer - He never questions his beliefs. We should pat him on the head and give him some candy, True Believers are adorable!

[Karmashock]

Yes, because obviously someone who would vote for John Kerry is incapable of being a relatively unbiased observer.

Now you're just being pathetic. You're changing the subject.


I said they were liberally biased, you said they were conservatively biased, i showed that they're STRONGLY in favor of leftist politics and NOW YOU"RE CHANGING THE SUBJECT!!!:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Pwnt.
==========================================
Huzzah! Do you hear that, Psy? We're officially stupid! Our insipid minds can tremble before the genius of Karmashock, whose compelling and incisive comments, especially those demonstrating that Iran wants to nuke the West with the whole world watching, continue to flabbergast and confound us.
I never said that, Dib. You know you're a bottom feeder when you have to put words in another's mouth just to SOMETHING to say... even if it is some flacid point a dog wouldn't deficate on.

I wonder what stupid tastes like?
Ever bit your lip, dib? It tastes something like that. ;) :lol:
================================================== =================
to karma :

dont get me wrong i am for everything the US says it stands for but as long as you continue your glorified view on things i am forced to get you back to reality . we both seem to do the same , this is just action reaction , no worries <3
You see, we're very similar here, but I'm on the other END OF IT.


STOP VILIFYING THE US AND I WON"T FEEL THE NEED TO GLORIFY IT!

I am happy with keeping things calm and balanced so long as they are BALANCED. However, typically this forum devolves into a anti US hatefest that is so filthy at some points that I need to just pour some good ol american sun shine on that shit.

I have no choice.

a) you are correct eventually you came and did some bombruns , but unlike WWI and WWII you didnt help decide it . After the US showed up the bosnians still were basically ignoring our pathetic forces. do you think you can stop a guerilla army with a stealthfighter? they stopped because they where done sad but true .their own population got tiered of the war and the eu/US offered fast acceptance if they gave up some major players who wanted to keep going
We were blowing up their tanks, miliarty complexes, AA batteries, artillery, etc.


As I said, ground control was YOUR responsibility. We fucked up the armor and command and control facilities. Don't blame us if you only sent like five guys with a rifle and two boxes of crackers...


We came to assist YOU. It was NEVER our job or our game. We came to help something YOU wanted us to do. We weren't interested. But we came because we're friends.

b)sure many things happen in a war and i dont realise war is hell but the only fucking difference between a group of terrorists and a lawfull army is discipline . you keep believing they are all isolated incidents but i strongly believe its part of US policy . its so shocking its not only affecting muslims , you are doing the same things as the russians did there 20 years ago ( few years after the lost there they collapsed )
US losses are nothing compared to what russian losses were... and the russians never got this far with their operations.

Furthermore, US policy is transparent on these issues and public knowledge. Anyone can obtain policy from our military.

The people acting who have embarressed us thus far have typically just been some bad people.


You did hear that the British had some similar problems... are you going to tell me that the British have disapline problems? Get real. The world of TV makes every error stand out bold and bright... and if they want to they don't even have to tell us about the good things... For every insident of rape or toture, there's another guy you didn't hear about that died protecting a child.


Unusual people... but then it's all about what you want to report isn't it...

"The only thing that is changing is that people aren't hiding what they've always been" this is utter bullshit and i honoustly expected a better respons then that from you . even mothere theresa would have killed people if you pushed the right buttons
MT is not the woman you want to use as an example... she let people die in her hospitals because she believed it was "holy" to suffer.

And how exactly did Spanards push those people that blew up a bomb in their train network?

How did the Britian push the people that wanted to release ricene in Underground?


These people are not "normal" people. We have MILLIONS of muslims in the US... and of that I doubt more then a thousand are actually dangerous. When you look at any population you see that there is a group that is dangerous.


What the muslims don't quiet grasp as yet... is that we can do 'scary' too... They'll push US too far...

c) true but without the loss of support for the israeli colonies the result wouldnt have been the same .execution would just have made him a marter
If required, I'm willing to go back to the Old CIA... the one that was loaded with james bond gadgets... killing people with flower pollen or poisoned lipstick...



Let me just clarify my point. Arafat was a blood thursty murderer. His actions personally caused the deaths of thousands and the misery of millions.


He should have been stopped by something other than old age. Pay one of his people to knife him... I don't care...

d) i honoustly hope i am wrong on this one , fyi vietnamees tribes who supported the US are still being exterminated in vietnam atm
The lucky ones fled to the US. One of my good friend's mother is from there...

They lost everything over there... but becoming an American isn't a bad deal either...

e) well before 9/11 iran was slowly growing tiered of strong islam laws and the elected a prez who fought the ayatollahs for more liberty and everybody expected the new election to continue on this road , the suprise was big for refugees here when they heard the news that the muslim candidate won .remember that kids who where born after the revolution never knew liberties and that genearation is slowly getting into power ( 20something )
The religious council has had control the entire time. The 'government' of Iran is largely a set peice put on display for western media. Any major decision must be cleared with the religious council... and that has been the way it has been ever since the take over of the government by that faction.


There has never been anything else. The only thing that is hopeful is that the religious nuts have also always been a minority of the country. They are however, a motivated minority. Like the Sunnis of Iraq... and because they were not controlled, they now control the country.


Not the president... so I really don't care who they vote into office as it's all sham.



during the long march the leader of the chinese communist party spend years sleeping in fields sometimes eating mud to fill his stumach but after a decade he took power and his party is still controlling 1 billion human beings with a total lack of respect for human rights .
Yes... the World Wars weakened the governments around the world enough for such things to happen... the tsar would have never fallen if not for WWI weakening his power base... and the republic that was to follow would never have been killed and their fledging republic burned if not for the germans spiriting Lenin into Russia... because they wanted russia weak.

Malice... it destroys everything it touches.

ffs your own independency war should teach you not to underestimate a bunch of wacky yahoos with strong believes ( disclaimer i do not wish to compare the founding fathers to the taliban whatsoever)
The founders were uniters... not killers. They built this country on compromise and showed the whole world a new way of doing things.

The various communist dictatorships have shown the world nothing new... and taught the world nothing new... only old lessons retaught again and again till the people of the world finally learn. I fear further lessons on the topic are in our future...


As to small groups wielding great power? I am very familar with this... I am in a way a part of such a faction in my own country. I am a neocon. We are a small portion of population... but we have tramendious power because unlike most people we have a plan and a vision.

So I do not think we underestimate the enemy. Understand, our time tables are far longer then most people would guess. Thirty years was the inital prediction for a stable middle east... It looks like it's getting shortened by about ten years which is good news... but anyone that thinks we were looking to finish this off in a year and then go home has underestimated our resolve.
================================================== ==================
Location LA
What does that mean?

And if you are so passionate about most of this BS i read - go enlist at least this forum will stop overheating.
I am merely oxygen, little one. If you weren't already burning when I showed up it wouldn't turn into an inferno. ;)


Observe my comments to Tank0. He was civil to me, and I was in turn civil to him.

If you wish me to be civil to you, then don't insult me or my people. If you have a problem, you can speak about it like a gentleman, or be bitchslapped like a crackwhore that's been holding out on her pimp.
================================================== ====================
He's just a True Believer
now you've just devolved into cat calls like the cheap punk you are... :lol:

If you aren't good for anythign but crapping in your hand and throwing it at people, then why don't you just go back to the zoo where you belong ;)

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Psy]

not worth the time Karma is ....

[2biT]

You where techincally winning Vitenam, how many 'cong killed compared to amercians.

You 'lost' because the american public couldnt 'hack it' because it wasnt a very popular war to begin with and when those casulty rate start to rise the media jump on the antiwar bandwagon. Alot of parallels can be draw to Iraq.

[Dibujante]

Now you're just being pathetic. You're changing the subject.


I said they were liberally biased, you said they were conservatively biased, i showed that they're STRONGLY in favor of leftist politics and NOW YOU"RE CHANGING THE SUBJECT!!!

Pwnt.
Whoah, there, boy. I'd like you to quote me on that. I think the closest I got to that was saying that, while Democrats got a bit more airtime, Republicans had a slightly higher ratio of positive airtime to negative. If anything, this indicates that there are minor fluctuations of media coverage that don't translate to a significant source of Democrat/Republican bias at all. Don't put words in my mouth ;)

TOP VILIFYING THE US AND I WON"T FEEL THE NEED TO GLORIFY IT!

I am happy with keeping things calm and balanced so long as they are BALANCED. However, typically this forum devolves into a anti US hatefest that is so filthy at some points that I need to just pour some good ol american sun shine on that shit.

I have no choice.
Alright, realize that the main threads in Current Events & Issues that we're abusing right now have been both started by you and vigorously pro-American. If you feel attacked just by being pro-American, then that's your concern. But it seems like the only defense you are engaging in is pre-emptive defense. I guess that's "American" of you.

US losses are nothing compared to what russian losses were... and the russians never got this far with their operations.

Furthermore, US policy is transparent on these issues and public knowledge. Anyone can obtain policy from our military.

The people acting who have embarressed us thus far have typically just been some bad people.
You mean like the people who massacred upwards of 5000 Taliban prisoners and buried their bodies in mass graves in western Afghanistan? There's a documentary. Your military lies.

If required, I'm willing to go back to the Old CIA... the one that was loaded with james bond gadgets... killing people with flower pollen or poisoned lipstick...

Let me just clarify my point. Arafat was a blood thursty murderer. His actions personally caused the deaths of thousands and the misery of millions.

He should have been stopped by something other than old age. Pay one of his people to knife him... I don't care... The Old CIA (and the currently CIA) are/were instruments of imperialism and repression. You are therefore an advocate of imperialism and internal repression if you endorse these methods.

The religious council has had control the entire time. The 'government' of Iran is largely a set peice put on display for western media. Any major decision must be cleared with the religious council... and that has been the way it has been ever since the take over of the government by that faction.
The religious council has veto power and that's it. It gets more opportunities to exercise it but in many ways it serves as a non-precedent-making Supreme Court. While law is not made by it, law is filtered by it, giving it some power and handing the rest to the people. That characterization is unjust, particularly since there are a number of Iranian politicians who are trying, through peaceful means, to reduce its influence. And somehow they're not ending up dead or imprisoned, unlike political dissenters in the U.S.

now you've just devolved into cat calls like the cheap punk you are...

If you aren't good for anythign but crapping in your hand and throwing it at people, then why don't you just go back to the zoo where you belong
If 3/4 of your "responses" weren't either chanting "USA" repeatedly or insulting the respondee, then I would feel some pang of conscience for the 1/5 of my responses that are composed merely of personal attacks.

[Karmashock]

not worth the time Karma is ....
Discussion over your head?... back to the kiddy table then.
========================================
You where techincally winning Vitenam, how many 'cong killed compared to amercians.
Did you even go to school? Or did you drop out before they covered Nam? Please...

You 'lost' because the american public couldnt 'hack it' because it wasnt a very popular war to begin with and when those casulty rate start to rise the media jump on the antiwar bandwagon. Alot of parallels can be draw to Iraq.
So what you're really saying is that liberal media cost us the war? :lol:


Try a military unable to act.
==========================================
Whoah, there, boy. I'd like you to quote me on that. I think the closest I got to that was saying that, while Democrats got a bit more airtime, Republicans had a slightly higher ratio of positive airtime to negative. If anything, this indicates that there are minor fluctuations of media coverage that don't translate to a significant source of Democrat/Republican bias at all. Don't put words in my mouth ;)
So you're saying that with as much as 90 pecent control of most sources and about 70 percent control over all, your people are being more positive towards Republicans?


Did you vomit out your brain?


Alright, realize that the main threads in Current Events & Issues that we're abusing right now have been both started by you and vigorously pro-American. If you feel attacked just by being pro-American
No... I feel the whole forum to be anti american, so I'm balancing it.

Either be balanced or accept that I WILL balance it for you.

That is American.

You mean like the people who massacred upwards of 5000 Taliban prisoners and buried their bodies in mass graves in western Afghanistan? There's a documentary. Your military lies.
Give me a link to what you're talking about... and respected news sources only please.


The Old CIA (and the currently CIA) are/were instruments of imperialism and repression. You are therefore an advocate of imperialism and internal repression if you endorse these methods.
Not at all, twit. The old CIA but not the current CIA were tasked with controlling the Soviets for most of their work this century.

We only went out to stop them. The current CIA has had it's balls cut off... if it were brought back, I'd have them get inside the terror organizations and rip them appart from teh inside out.


The religious council has veto power and that's it.
They have no limit on their veto power, which means they can kill plan they don't like or stop any president from getting elected.

The government is theirs.


If 3/4 of your "responses" weren't either chanting "USA" repeatedly or insulting the respondee, then I would feel some pang of conscience for the 1/5 of my responses that are composed merely of personal attacks.
You should... because 100 percent of my responses that said "go USA" were in response to someonse else saying "fuck the USA" and 100 percent of the times when I said "die painfully dipshit" were in response to someone else saying "I hate you, you dummy head!"...


So really, if all I'm doing is returning fire, you can't blame me... can you, chuckles?


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Tank0]

relex guys ... i ve learned to view karma's posts


it is just an opinion , not the one and only golden truth ..... everyone has a right to post his/her views here .

tbh demon , turtle and justice's posts disturbs me more then karma's sometimes .

maybe we react so strong because ,contrary to the spamrabbits , karma sometimes makes valid points and i enjoy the fact that i can learn a neocon view on things . tbh its an unique view on things for me since i am a european green party ( aka treehugger :nyah: )

i agreed to disagree and try to have a exchange of ideas here .

afterall truth is in the eye of the beholder

[Dibujante]

I've had good conversations with neocons and Karma's do not cut it. The good conversations are usually lighter on the blind religiosity and hatred and heavier on the reasoned discussion of differences in values.

[Karmashock]

tbh its an unique view on things for me since i am a european green party ( aka treehugger :nyah: )
Likewise I like to know how people within the eurosphere think. We would obviously be better off in alliance, but if it cannot be sustained, then other allies must be sought. If there is anything that you should know about neocons, it's that we do not shrink from near impossible goals. We merely take it in stride that it will take a very long time to complete and be very hard... then we go about doing it. Nor are we big about bitching and moaning to the press or holding little rallies. We bypass that and again, just do it.


afterall truth is in the eye of the beholder
True... but reality has a way of rendering 'opinions' irrelevant. Trueth is not only in the eye, but in the stomach, the mouth, the feet, the ears, the skin, the mind, etc. A starving North Korean can tell me his people have a better way of life... he might see that... he might hear that... but his stomach is telling him he's going to die.

I've had good conversations with neocons and Karma's do not cut it. The good conversations are usually lighter on the blind religiosity and hatred and heavier on the reasoned discussion of differences in values.
Then you did not speak to them as you have spoken to me. If you think I have behaved abnormally to your behavior, then cite examples. I think you'll find you have more to be ashamed of in this exchange then I do.


Also, I have had better discussions with communists then you. Most of them are more knowledgable about their field and less apt drop into platitudes.


So you can kindly take your pathetic condiscention and eat it, twit.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

Then you did not speak to them as you have spoken to me. If you think I have behaved abnormally to your behavior, then cite examples. I think you'll find you have more to be ashamed of in this exchange then I do.

Also, I have had better discussions with communists then you. Most of them are more knowledgable about their field and less apt drop into platitudes.

So you can kindly take your pathetic condiscention and eat it, twit.

Love and peace, Karmashock.
Most neocons I've spoken with are at least willing to substantiate their arguments, which, in turn, recieves a substantiated response. You repeat the same age-old criticisms of "communism" without ever reacting to counter-arguments. You set up "communism" as whatever you want it to be and tear it down. That is straw-man-ism. I have no patience for such foolishness.

You make a lot of accusations that you do not substantiate. That is an unacceptable and childish form of argument. I could repeat the process and accuse you of so many things that by the time we got to dealing with anything substantiated, we'd both be dead and buried. Simply telling me "It's been proven and I don't need to reiterate" isn't convincing. I could assert that about anything without making it true.

I guess you're not competent to argue about anything but instead only to repeat the party line. Oh, and if you want condescension, it's spelled "condescension". I could spell that word since I was five. Had you figured out diapers by that point?

[Karmashock]

Most neocons I've spoken with are at least willing to substantiate their arguments, which, in turn, recieves a substantiated response.
Do you want some links, kitten? A few quotations from a few sources? Fine... name something you have a hard time believing and I'll back it up.

I have no time or patience to spend on writing essays for people. Ask a question or ask me to prove something. Otherwise, you have no grounds for such sad little excuses for your behavior.

You repeat the same age-old criticisms of "communism" without ever reacting to counter-arguments.
They're 'age old' because they're tried and true ;) :lol:

You set up "communism" as whatever you want it to be and tear it down. That is straw-man-ism.
Not at all. Communism hardly factors in this thread to begin with as it's about Iraq, moron. Furthermore, my references to communism have all be fairly accurate. You're just so in love with it that you refuse to see some of its inevitable failings.

You make a lot of accusations that you do not substantiate. That is an unacceptable and childish form of argument.
Clearly you've never talked to another human being in your life... or you're making up crap... Typically people don't speak with parenthetical references, tard. If you have some concerns, raise them. It is your job to prompt me to prove something if you have an issue with it. Not mine to automatically provide detailed information about anything and everything I might say.


Get a grip. :lol:

Simply telling me "It's been proven and I don't need to reiterate" isn't convincing.
In a fictitious universe, this would be true. But you see in 'reality' some things are "true" and some things are "false". Some things are also "common knowledge". I will not waste my time debating something that is dead and buried.

I guess you're not competent to argue about anything but instead only to repeat the party line.
Bitch please, I take issue with 60 percent of what my political faction does on a regular basis. And to my own people I'll bother to discuss it. But with "you" what is the point? That would be like complaining about a leaky hull on a boat to guy that wants to blow it up! I'll talk to someone with an interest in saving my issue when I have a problem with it. But to you? Come now... When was the last time you told us all about the failings of Communism? Ever? Why is that? Too stupid to realize you're a hypocrite clearly... :lol:

Oh, and if you want condescension, it's spelled "condescension". I could spell that word since I was five.
:lol::lol::lol::lol: WOW are you ever scrapping the deseperate barrel clean! Spelling comebacks?!
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/grammarian.jpg

The last refuge of the unoriginal and thoughtless. A computer would make that kind of criticism and in fact do it better then you did. The sad irony is that you've been making plenty of spelling errors this whole time. I've noticed a few, but I'm not petty or pathetic enough to bring them up like it means anything.

Kill yourself before you get more pathetic. :lol:


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

Do you want some links, kitten? A few quotations from a few sources? Fine... name something you have a hard time believing and I'll back it up.

Not at all. Communism hardly factors in this thread to begin with as it's about Iraq, moron. Furthermore, my references to communism have all be fairly accurate. You're just so in love with it that you refuse to see some of its inevitable failings.

Clearly you've never talked to another human being in your life... or you're making up crap... Typically people don't speak with parenthetical references, tard. If you have some concerns, raise them. It is your job to prompt me to prove something if you have an issue with it. Not mine to automatically provide detailed information about anything and everything I might say.

Get a grip. :lol:

No, clearly you have never talked to another human being in your life. Everyone knows that in an argument, the person who advances the proposition has the onus of proof. If you have a criticism, you prove, you substantiate. I do not need to defend myself from baseless criticism and will only defend myself from substantiated criticism. This rule is in place to keep arguments from degenerating into endless ad hominem. Were you to have to rebut every one of my assertions, unsubstantiated or no, I could spend the rest of my life saying "Karmashock fucks farm animals" and you would somehow be obligated to rebuff that nonsense. I'm kind of glad that the structure of debate is such that I couldn't get away with that bullshit. Now grow up and stop trying to get away with it. You prove it or you lose it.

Come now... When was the last time you told us all about the failings of Communism? Ever? Why is that? Too stupid to realize you're a hypocrite clearly... :lol:
Okay, point out the last position you took which was an utter failure. Also, point out to us the critical flaws (critical, not nit-picky) of capitalism and the failures of the West. Real failures, please, not "we didn't try quite hard enough" or "we weren't quite self-sacrificing enough". No, I want gory details. Hypocrite.


:lol::lol::lol::lol: WOW are you ever scrapping the deseperate barrel clean! Spelling comebacks?!
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/grammarian.jpg

The last refuge of the unoriginal and thoughtless. A computer would make that kind of criticism and in fact do it better then you did. The sad irony is that you've been making plenty of spelling errors this whole time. I've noticed a few, but I'm not petty or pathetic enough to bring them up like it means anything.

Then bring them up, child. My better handle on the structure and nature of debate is matched by my better handle on English orthography. You have neither and I am but one step shy of segueing into a critique of your intelligence.

In conclusion, you make assertions that you simply assume are true due to your absolute True Belief in their substance. Therefore, when someone demands substantiation, you do not provide it and simply assume that they're ignoring your Absolute Truth, which you've somehow proven by simply stating it. You have the most severe allergic reaction to facts I have ever seen. In our conversations I provided historical evidence. You provided rhetoric. No wonder you're a neo-con: all following and no thinking.

[Karmashock]

No, clearly you have never talked to another human being in your life. Everyone knows that in an argument, the person who advances the proposition has the onus of proof.
When I say "it's cold outside, be sure to bring your coat" I don't say it's coldout side and the thermometer read 40 degrees F. Here is a histogram of the temperature over the past 12 hours. Temperatures below 60 degrees can often cause discomfort and in some cases death in extreme situations. Here are some medical essays upon the subjects of hypothermia, frostbite, etc. It is my opinion therefore that it being winter and the observed temperature being below 50 degrees F, that you might want to bring your coat. Because your coat acts as an insulation layer between the cold and your own body. That coat was rated by the manufacturer for temperatures below 40 degrees. So while it should be good for the observed 50 degrees, we should be careful to make sure we go inside if the temperature falls some more.

No... people don't actually talk like that... douche.


I am not asking you to prove me wrong first. I am merely requesting that in the interest of all our time and the casual setting that YOU tell me what you would like to be backed up. I tell you to back stuff up when you say something I don't believe, why can't you do that? it's pretty simple and would save us all a lot of tedious horseshit. ;)

If you have a criticism, you prove, you substantiate.
Uh... that chick is fat... OH MY GODZ SUBSTANTIATE THAT!!! I demand weights and population statistics!!

or it's obvious that she's fat... The bitch weighs 400 pounds if she weighs an ounce. :D


I do not need to defend myself from baseless criticism and will only defend myself from substantiated criticism.
Nope... you just need to ask me to back something up that you think needs it. Not much to ask... then when I do back it, THEN you can defend yourself.


This rule is in place to keep arguments from degenerating into endless ad hominem.
This rule doesn't apply in casual settings, twit. As I said, have you ever spoken with a human being before?

Were you to have to rebut every one of my assertions, unsubstantiated or no, I could spend the rest of my life saying "Karmashock fucks farm animals" and you would somehow be obligated to rebuff that nonsense.
Pfft. You must not get out much... If some dude tells you "you fuck farm animals" you call him a gimp and move on. If it's a serious assertion, then I'd ask the little fucker to back it up. But until I say that, he's not really required to do so. Only in a more formal setting would be required to do so with the accusation. For example, if he took that to the police. As you might have found out, having set with animals is generally illegal. Leave you cat alone.

You prove it or you lose it.
PROVE WHAT, YOU FUCKING HEAD CASE!?!

I have no idea what we're even talking about with all your endless bitching and moaning. Grow a pair of fucking balls and say what you've got to say. Until then put your sister's dick back in your mouth and shut the fuck up.

Okay, point out the last position you took which was an utter failure. Also, point out to us the critical flaws (critical, not nit-picky) of capitalism and the failures of the West. Real failures, please, not "we didn't try quite hard enough" or "we weren't quite self-sacrificing enough". No, I want gory details. Hypocrite.
Excuse me? YOU WERE THE ONE THAT MADE THE ACCUSATION! I CAN"T BE A HYPOCRITE BECAUSE I DIDN"T MAKE IT! IDIOT!


Then bring them up, child.
Why? It's petty and pointless. What kind of a dickless shut in would even give a rat's ass? Crawl back under your rock and die.

My better handle on the structure and nature of debate is matched by my better handle on English orthography.
It's pathetic how hard you're trying to sound intelligent, dib. I don't need to pull that sorry transparent act, my intelligence shines through despite my foul language and total disregard for grammar. And THAT is something you can't match.


In conclusion, you make assertions that you simply assume are true due to your absolute True Belief in their substance.
Not at all. You question one and I'll back it up. Furthermore, you're a hypocrite because you don't back your stupid ass up either. You just launch into pointless and petty attacks on the lack of spell check on another user's posts.

I mean... how sad do you get?

Therefore, when someone demands substantiation
You have not demanded it on any single point. You have demanded it on all points. Which is impractical and hypocritical.

You have the most severe allergic reaction to facts I have ever seen.
WHAT FACTS HAVE YOU POSTED WHAT SO EVER!!!

I DEMAND YOU SHOW ME THE FACTS I HAVE IGNORED HERE.

SHOW ME YOUR FACTS, NOW. Don't put new ones up. I want to see the ONGOING facts that I have ignored. Do NOT gloss over this section of my post. SHOW ME THE FACTS I IGNORED, NOW.

I DEMAND THAT YOU BACK YOUR SAD ASS UP.


In our conversations I provided historical evidence.
Where...

No wonder you're a neo-con: all following and no thinking.
That right there is perhaps the most telling thing you've said in this section. If you knew anything about neocons what so ever. Even a LITTLE, you wouldn't have said that.:lol:


You're just a walking punch line, twit.


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

Alright, then. Let's take a look at Karmashock's self-induced myopia.


Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common.
What property rights do the people have when everything is held in common and nothing can really be owned by an individual?
That is true for the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union was communist then Marx was not a communist. If Marx was a communist then the Soviet Union was not communist. Marx considered personal property the basis of all exchange and the basis of social structures and interactions. It's more complex than that, but I'm vulgarizing a dialectic here. The short answer: that's not just a misrepresentation but a fabrication.
Marx's transitionary period towards communism was not only centralized but a dead end leading inevidably to the various communist societies we see around the world.
These people read his book too. Most of them tried to make his world. They have all failed at different points for different reasons.
Why?
Communism was given BILLIONS of people to work with. The hope it created with a promise of something new and better was infectious. But failed and failed and failed.
WHY?
Hey, if you keep ignoring me, that's fine. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Deng, etc all read some Marx. Many read vulgarizations, many read Das Kapital, but none seemed to understand it. You can't infer the quality of a movement by its misinterpretations. The very nature of Soviet and Chinese "communism" is completely consistent with why Karl Marx criticized capitalism to begin with: it strips people of agency and reduces everyone into varying degrees of drones.
You're missing my point. There is a transitionary period between the state and new system.
That period is the flawed state. Any nation that enters it will not lead to your kind of communism.
Don't ignore THAT.
You make the unsubstantiated assumption that the transitory state must be either the USSR or China.
No, that said system fails and leads to a failed state which is like the USSR or China. Look if you're going to change everything you're not going to do it with huggybear kisses and candy cane poems about the brotherhood of humanity... and don't forget the tree spirits... cus' they have feelings too...
You're going to do it with force... and that force will fail... and that failure will lead to oppression, corruption, and pain.
Unsubstantiated. The United States, today, is much closer to the ideal of "collective property" than it was two hundred years ago. Today, the voting base, that is, an overwhelming majority of the people, have a say in how much people are paid for their labor, under what conditions they can labor, how land is to be used, the payment of subsidies...the list goes on. There is a certain degree of "collective property" in the U.S. system that certainly wasn't a result of a strong state beating everyone else into submission. You have no grounds to assume that any "communist" policies that aimed at the same goals would somehow have to be violent.

In this case I present the view that Marx was opposed to the soviet transitory state. You assert that the Soviet transitory state is a must and I assert that it is not so, since it violated Marx's principles on personal property. At which point you turn around and assert, surprise-surprise, that the Soviet system was not only somehow "communist" but that it was given billions of people and failed and that this somehow implies the death of my point. My point, which wasn't even touched on. Completely ignored, really. You pursue this entire thread without ever actually substantiating one of your arguments, by the way. That's just poor sportsmanship.

I have cited complexity theory enough times that you should have looked up at least that. THAT alone kills any prospect of a centralized economy of any real scale.
Karl Marx would congratulate you for killing large-scale centralized economy, since he wasn't a proponent either...Again, I think you're confusing the Soviet economy with the Marxist economy.
You're changing the subject. I'm saying that "Whole careers have been built upon very very carefully taking marx apart and showing with scientific precision how and why he is wrong about so so much."
Nobel prizes have been awarded to several men that have repeatedly BROKEN his theories.
You quoted one theory, complexity theory. This only applies to the command-economy model. If Marx is a command economist, it debunks him. If Marx isn't a command economist, it does not. Having indicated that, in fact, Marx was not, you proceed to ignore me and insist that you've somehow proven that these magical economists have "broken" Marx's theories. A bunch of straw-men, the lot of you.

Let's go to some of your recent CE&I threads!
That's what you idiots said about Afganistan. Said we'd get bogged down like the russians and it would be an endless blood bath.
Wasn't... quick pwn, followed by an interm government that is so far stable.
Afghanistan is shit. Karzai recieved little of the reconstruction money promised to him and now has control over no area outside of Kabul. Afghanistan has mostly gone back to warlords, taliban and anarchy. But hey, it's gone from the media.
No response =/ I guess you just shut up when you're whipped =/ I've been in touch with Professor Zaher Wahab who teaches at Reed University, up in Oregon, and was present for the original U.S. machinations in the '70s. He's kept up on the situation and paints an absolutely different picture. He is a Pashtun, native to Afghanistan.

Or let's take a brilliant Karmashock post:

Now you're just being pathetic. You're changing the subject.
I said they were liberally biased, you said they were conservatively biased, i showed that they're STRONGLY in favor of leftist politics and NOW YOU"RE CHANGING THE SUBJECT!!!

This was spawned by my statement:
Yes, because obviously someone who would vote for John Kerry is incapable of being a relatively unbiased observer.
Which was spawned by my statement:
I took a quick look at that link. I've seen it before, it's kind of amusing. However, all of the evidence on the link you provided indicated that journalists voted Democrat more than they voted Republican. That doesn't actually demonstrate your point. What would demonstrate it (and what I would concede to) would be a survey of headlines in major publications. This site simply points out stories that it claims are biased when, in fact, the act of pointing out those stories is also suspect of bias. If I only point out the one whole story in the newspaper where the news was biased towards republicans, would that prove pro-republican bias? I doubt. Good surveys exist but I haven't seen any supporting the "democrats are running the news media" story.I looked at your source and found it lacking.

As for the "pro-republican bias"? I guess he got it from this quote:
I read a report a while ago that indicated that a series of LexusNexus searches indicated two things: liberals got slightly more air-time than conservatives and conservatives got a slightly greater percentage of their airtime as "positive airtime" rather than "negative airtime", i.e. pictures of George Bush signing laws or making speeches rather than speculation about his intelligence failures pre-9/11.Interpret that as an accusation of pro-republican bias if you must, but it seems logical to me that it's an indication that there's not enough bias in the media for it to skew significantly.

Basically, you provided evidence of a strong "leftist" bias (as if you knew what the word meant, you trained ape) and I indicated that the evidence did not show causality or even correlation. You in turn asserted that you had proved the point I had just attempted to debunk. Any evidence? None must be given. Karmashock is above evidence.

Karmashock, when faced with evidence you simply raise your voice and holler the same old story. Occasionally you condescend to tell us that the answer is simply "too compwicated fow ouw widdow bwains to unnerstand." Try not sucking so much.

Now, let's analyze the content of your latest post:

When I say "it's cold outside, be sure to bring your coat" I don't say it's coldout side and the thermometer read 40 degrees F. Here is a histogram of the temperature over the past 12 hours. Temperatures below 60 degrees can often cause discomfort and in some cases death in extreme situations. Here are some medical essays upon the subjects of hypothermia, frostbite, etc. It is my opinion therefore that it being winter and the observed temperature being below 50 degrees F, that you might want to bring your coat. Because your coat acts as an insulation layer between the cold and your own body. That coat was rated by the manufacturer for temperatures below 40 degrees. So while it should be good for the observed 50 degrees, we should be careful to make sure we go inside if the temperature falls some more.
No... people don't actually talk like that... douche.
I am not asking you to prove me wrong first. I am merely requesting that in the interest of all our time and the casual setting that YOU tell me what you would like to be backed up. I tell you to back stuff up when you say something I don't believe, why can't you do that? it's pretty simple and would save us all a lot of tedious horseshit.
In the interest of not wasting your time, you intend to sacrifice mine. Typical capitalist. This point is irrelevant. In our present context, you and I are arguing cross-purposes. If you were to assert that it was cold out and I were to have no vested interest in proving otherwise, I would not care about proof. That circumstance is not this circumstance. Try harder.

Uh... that chick is fat... OH MY GODZ SUBSTANTIATE THAT!!! I demand weights and population statistics!!
or it's obvious that she's fat... The bitch weighs 400 pounds if she weighs an ounce. I don't particularly like your example, but aside from that, if you were to make the assertion and I were to challenge it, there would be evidence there to back it up. You could, in fact, weigh said person and prove it. It would be a strange request outside of this context but, as my previous point indicated, the clash of wills present in the present context is fundamentally different from the one in this example.

PROVE WHAT, YOU FUCKING HEAD CASE!?!
I have no idea what we're even talking about with all your endless bitching and moaning. Grow a pair of fucking balls and say what you've got to say. Until then put your sister's dick back in your mouth and shut the fuck up.Okay, so your coup de grace is questioning my masculinity. This carries with it the implication that femininity is somehow worse, somehow incapable of holding a discussion. Thanks for the misogyny. Are you really an adult? You don't seem mature enough.

Aside from that, "put your sister's dick in your mouth"? Now, you insult my family and attempt to insult my sexuality. If you are somehow implying that I am homosexual, I must ask two questions: why is that a bad thing and what does that have to do with the discussion? If you're simply insulting my family, I simply need to ask the latter question yet again.

Juvenile and banal, your responses betray a lack of maturity.

[Karmashock]

First, I'm not going to address things taken from our private discussions. Taking that here shows a lack of taste and sense. People neither have enough context to judge anything from those as they don't have hte full transcript, nor do they have the patience to sift through it all even if they did.

So those will be ignored outright in this public setting. However, they are up for comment where they were made, which was in private.

<<<Huge area of private stuff skipped>>>

No response =/ I guess you just shut up when you're whipped =/ I've been in touch with Professor Zaher Wahab who teaches at Reed University, up in Oregon, and was present for the original U.S. machinations in the '70s. He's kept up on the situation and paints an absolutely different picture. He is a Pashtun, native to Afghanistan.
Not at all. In fact, I was bored by it and I didn't really feel like talking about it.


But fine, back that up. Cite some sources. Otherwise, it's just baseless bullshit.

Prove it to me :D


<<<More private stuff skipped>>>
This was spawned by my statement:

Which was spawned by my statement:
I looked at your source and found it lacking.

As for the "pro-republican bias"? I guess he got it from this quote:
Interpret that as an accusation of pro-republican bias if you must, but it seems logical to me that it's an indication that there's not enough bias in the media for it to skew significantly.

Basically, you provided evidence of a strong "leftist" bias (as if you knew what the word meant, you trained ape) and I indicated that the evidence did not show causality or even correlation. You in turn asserted that you had proved the point I had just attempted to debunk. Any evidence? None must be given. Karmashock is above evidence.
Half of your quotes were out of order and out of context. I'm not responding to nonsense that isn't even put in the proper order...

Karmashock, when faced with evidence you simply raise your voice and holler the same old story.
Even if I did do that, and I don't... it's still better then lying.

You remain a cheap punk. ;)

Occasionally you condescend to tell us that the answer is simply "too compwicated fow ouw widdow bwains to unnerstand."
As other people then myself have pointed out to you, this is often the case with you. You're a dolt.


Now, let's analyze the content of your latest post:


In the interest of not wasting your time, you intend to sacrifice mine.
You owe us your time because your thick head consistenly requires that shit gets reexplained to you. I'm going slow so you un-der-stand.

Typical capitalist.
What? That makes no sense... I mean, I assume you were trying to insult me or something... but that just came off as ill concieved tripe. Capitalists are extremely effiecient with their time though... not like it matters in this case... but something to consider the next time you randomly vomit out words.

This point is irrelevant. In our present context, you and I are arguing cross-purposes. If you were to assert that it was cold out and I were to have no vested interest in proving otherwise, I would not care about proof. That circumstance is not this circumstance. Try harder.
I do not know what you will find issue with and what you will not. Ask for proof on any given element and I'll provide it.

I don't particularly like your example, but aside from that, if you were to make the assertion and I were to challenge it, there would be evidence there to back it up. You could, in fact, weigh said person and prove it. It would be a strange request outside of this context but, as my previous point indicated, the clash of wills present in the present context is fundamentally different from the one in this example.
Not really... until you elevate a given element to the level at which it must be defended, I will feel no need to waste my time pulling up links to back up my statments.

Okay, so your coup de grace is questioning my masculinity.
Don't look at me, you're the one that started talking about spelling and other petty shit like it mattered in a setting where no one is obviously making any effort to spellcheck or proof read. I mean, you're not making an effort, or you're failing if you are... but my point here is that you're being bitchy and effeminent with your insistance on pointless aspects of this discussion. I haven't seen this kind of petty trash outside of ocasional arguements with my girl friend and mother... they're the ONLY ones I know that bring up stupid shit like this... and they do it only to cause a fight. They don't even care themselves... they're just desperate for something to say... they admit it afterwards...


And NOW I see YOU doing it... well, I'm sorry, but I've only seen women in an emotional state do what you're doing... Sorry for the facts, sussan.

This carries with it the implication that femininity is somehow worse,somehow incapable of holding a discussion.
Not at all, but emotional women are known to be unreasonable... there are poems that go back thousands of years on the topic... to say nothing of a wealth of lifetime experences that anyone with more then one day outside his room would be aware of...

Thanks for the misogyny. Are you really an adult? You don't seem mature enough.
The sad irony is that your poorly crafted sarcasm brands you a novice if not a child... A pitty... you remain your own best critic.

Now, you insult my family and attempt to insult my sexuality. If you are somehow implying that I am homosexual, I must ask two questions: why is that a bad thing and what does that have to do with the discussion?
Merely a successful attempt at colorful vulgarity, Dib. Frankly, you bore me. So I'm doing my best to stay entertained by crafting nasty insults. There really isn't anything you've said thus far that would ever compel me to engage in a conversation with you. You are not listening to what anyone else is saying and are trapped in some sad fantasy world that I have no perverse interest in learning it's pathetic bounds. So I am entertaining myself...


And please, drop the politically correct "was that a slur" act. It's not fooling anyone and really just succeeds in making you look like an ass.


Juvenile and banal, your responses betray a lack of maturity.
I might be making "juvenile" insults, but no one could accuse me of being banal. :lol:

I am almost never accused of being a human record player... you however have been accused of it at least three times today on this very forum... :lol:


Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Tank0]

again guys cut out the flames we all know you ll never be best buds , no need to repeat it in every freaking thread .



"we do not shrink from near impossible goals" :lol: nor do we . green party and neocons are way different but they both want a better world for the next generation .


personally i am beginning to doubt that democracy is the way to go . a strong world governement that get to rule the planet for say a decade would be better . we live in a time of the global village and scientists show us more proof that some changes have to be global . we could waste another 100 years before we reach that goal or radically change the UN to start NOW.

/rant

[Karmashock]

personally i am beginning to doubt that democracy is the way to go . a strong world governement that get to rule the planet for say a decade would be better .
I can't go with that tank0... That is an unthinkable situation... I... I just can't tell you how much it disapoints me to hear you say this... I say this with no malice, I would die to prevent that from happening... I would kill... I am not alone.


we live in a time of the global village and scientists show us more proof that some changes have to be global . we could waste another 100 years before we reach that goal or radically change the UN to start NOW.
You are saying something that is the suspecion amongst the most paranoid in my my country... or at least I thought they were the most paranoid.


You are talking about the one world government... it's a conspiracy theory here... that there are those that work to bring it about. People bring it up when they want to make people uneasy about the UN or elitists.




I don't know if you realize exactly how that kind of statement reacts with my culture. Tank0... seriously... that is not something you want Americans to hear... I say this to you because I respect that you generally have remained civil. I say this because I generally regard you as a gentleman. You have earned a level of honesty and kinship that VERY few on this board have earned. Not from agreeing with me, you tend to disagree... but from being a what generally seems to me to be a decent human being.

It amazes me that you don't see how this statment of a one world government would react with American sensibilities... or perhaps you do and are being open about this... Tank0... There isn't much we wouldn't do to destroy that... the very idea sends shivers up my spine. It's emotional... almost instinctual...


I feel about those words much like I would if someone started firing a machine gun randomly in the air while I was eating lunch in local cafe...




Just know this... pursuing that goal means destroying or crippling the free world.... we will defend ourselves.

/rant

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Tank0]

i do not mean a cummunist party that rules the planet , just one representative per continent in a council of 7 who set out goals for the next 10 years , after that the people are forced to make place for the next generation . havent shows like "idols" shown you that the majority usually makes stupid decisions ? why let them rule the planet

the nations then decide how to get the results that are planned by the global council . it wouldnt take away most of our liberties but make it more fair to the poor countries , now the G8 plays the same part but they do it in such a way they stay rich and others stay down . make the next UN better then the US and you won 't have to fear that you ll lose liberties .

if the american way of things is the best why not export it to the rest of the world ???


what one part of the planet does effects the rest .

example :

instead of refusing to cooperate on an international court you should support it , make it better then your own . or is it so far fetched that US citizens can do illegal actions . they deserve to be punished or is that citizenship a "get out of jail card"

[jvb]

america will allways win, they are so OP it is IMBA.

but seriously, i think the hardcore rightwing bush admin is not going to make the world (this includes america) a better place for anybody, except for the here and now in america. generally these things tend to backfire, compare it with ANY civilisation/country that wanted to dominate the world, all of them got extinct or slapped into submission HARD and none got what they wanted.

[Dibujante]

Half of your quotes were out of order and out of context. I'm not responding to nonsense that isn't even put in the proper order...They're all in order, child.


What? That makes no sense... I mean, I assume you were trying to insult me or something... but that just came off as ill concieved tripe. Capitalists are extremely effiecient with their time though... not like it matters in this case... but something to consider the next time you randomly vomit out words.Capitalists are very efficient with other people's time so that they can be more inefficient with their own.


I do not know what you will find issue with and what you will not. Ask for proof on any given element and I'll provide it.I wanted you to try to substantiate your claim that the transitory state had to be the USSR or China with something more than lapsing into platitudes. You still haven't.


Don't look at me, you're the one that started talking about spelling and other petty shit like it mattered in a setting where no one is obviously making any effort to spellcheck or proof read. I mean, you're not making an effort, or you're failing if you are... but my point here is that you're being bitchy and effeminent with your insistance on pointless aspects of this discussion. I haven't seen this kind of petty trash outside of ocasional arguements with my girl friend and mother... they're the ONLY ones I know that bring up stupid shit like this... and they do it only to cause a fight. They don't even care themselves... they're just desperate for something to say... they admit it afterwards...You cannot associate another person's motives with mine accurately. Maybe they just want something to say because they've exhausted factual information and found you surprisingly immune to it. I pity them. However, that notwithstanding, you're the one who started accusing me of condescension. Well, of "condiscention". Sure, I'm an asshole. I don't deny it. You are, however, heaping blame on only one actor in a two-role play.


And NOW I see YOU doing it... well, I'm sorry, but I've only seen women in an emotional state do what you're doing... Sorry for the facts, sussan.

Not at all, but emotional women are known to be unreasonable... there are poems that go back thousands of years on the topic... to say nothing of a wealth of lifetime experences that anyone with more then one day outside his room would be aware of...Ooh, misogyny. Great. Fucking fascist prick. If anyone is irrational it is you. You do not respond to arguments that could challenge your positions and your responses never condescend to give someone else a real answer. To top it all off, you're hateful and petty.

Lifetime experiences? You're a spoiled rich kid who has never done a real day's work in his life. I wouldn't be babbling about lifetime experiences to someone who has been working since they were 16 and has experienced a number of the things you babble on about first-hand (like islamic terrorism in Israel). Shut up.


The sad irony is that your poorly crafted sarcasm brands you a novice if not a child... A pitty... you remain your own best critic.Thanks for putting in my mouth words which accurately describe you. Except for the spelling mistakes. Those are yours.


Merely a successful attempt at colorful vulgarity, Dib. Frankly, you bore me. So I'm doing my best to stay entertained by crafting nasty insults. There really isn't anything you've said thus far that would ever compel me to engage in a conversation with you. You are not listening to what anyone else is saying and are trapped in some sad fantasy world that I have no perverse interest in learning it's pathetic bounds. So I am entertaining myself...

And please, drop the politically correct "was that a slur" act. It's not fooling anyone and really just succeeds in making you look like an ass.Of course I haven't said anything to compel you to argument with me. I've actually tried to substantiate some of my points with factual and historical evidence and have even tried to attack some of your points with the same. That always seems like a strong disincentive, for you, to engage in conversation. Sorry if you're afraid, bud.

What "politically correct act"? Are you crazy?
I might be making "juvenile" insults, but no one could accuse me of being banal. :lol:

I am almost never accused of being a human record player... you however have been accused of it at least three times today on this very forum... :lol:

Love and peace, Karmashock.
Never accused of being a human tape recorder? Whoops:
Where are Saddam's WMD's ?
Havent you people choked on one lie enough must we go through it all over again?Apparently, at least one person thinks you choke on the same lies over and over again. Well, make that two, that's my opinion as well.

If anyone is to stop talking it should be me. I've attempted to make and justify points and been rebuffed with rhetoric and platitudes and then accused of the same. Your coherence and maturity does not even surpass that of Newt Gingrich. It was, for a short time, my impression that you came to CE&I to debate, but you seem to simply be here in order to engage in verbal masturbation. Good for you, now fuck off, you half-wit misogynist fascist.

[Karmashock]

i do not mean a cummunist party that rules the planet , just one representative per continent in a council of 7 who set out goals for the next 10 years , after that the people are forced to make place for the next generation . havent shows like "idols" shown you that the majority usually makes stupid decisions ? why let them rule the planet

the nations then decide how to get the results that are planned by the global council . it wouldnt take away most of our liberties but make it more fair to the poor countries , now the G8 plays the same part but they do it in such a way they stay rich and others stay down . make the next UN better then the US and you won 't have to fear that you ll lose liberties .

if the american way of things is the best why not export it to the rest of the world ???


what one part of the planet does effects the rest .

example :

instead of refusing to cooperate on an international court you should support it , make it better then your own . or is it so far fetched that US citizens can do illegal actions . they deserve to be punished or is that citizenship a "get out of jail card"
We have no specific problem with communism. We do not hate marx. We do not hate the USSR for existing. What drove us insane is an expansionist power bent on global control. We will not tolerate any threat to the freedom of our nation.

We are NOT europeans with our history's of subservance to monarchs. WE WILL BE FREE! I don't care if we make stupid decisions. I would rather make stupid decisions and have them be MINE then be SLAVE to the state. And yes, that's what you are under a monarch. Perhaps you get some rights if you have a constitution that limits the power of the monarchs, but remember that it was the lords or the rich that secured those rights... generally just for themselves.


It is not and never has been communism that has bothered us. If Russia had no interest in spreading communism around the globe, then we wouldn't have minded them. If communism had always been a happy little system that kept to itself and didn't get off on threatening my people with doom or flooding our nation with spies, then we wouldn't mind them.


They brought the fight to us... they filled our nation with spies... they tried to corrupt our neighbors... they frightened us... and as a frightened democracy, we decided to destroy them.




The one world government frightens us.


As to the 'world' court. We don't trust it. We don't trust the people setting it up. We don't trust how it will be used... the whole thing makes us very uneasy. Bill Clinton wouldn't join it. Think on that. We will NOT submit to the power of another. We will be free.
================================================== =====
They're all in order, child.
No they're not, and most of your material was from PMs. So I really have no patiene for your petty bullshit. Everyone can see what you're doing here, and until you proceed honorably, I feel no need to further waste my time with you. You are throughly boring... so until you become interesting, honorable, or in some way make a creditable attack upon me, I'll be ignoring you again.

You have lied, obfuscated, and distorted this conversation out of all proportion... and it is no longer worth my time to untangle it when you'll just show contempt for the whole process by lying again.


You are back on my ignore list, Dib. Sorry, but you do keep earning it. I will still read your PMs, but not to continue our discussions. You have violated even the small trust that goes into a PM conversation by publishing snipits that you felt damaging. If you have a short message to send me there, I will read it... but otherwise you're not talking to me anymore. If you're looking to distort and lie about the words of another, then look elsewhere. I am done with you.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[Dibujante]

We have no specific problem with communism. We do not hate marx. We do not hate the USSR for existing. What drove us insane is an expansionist power bent on global control. We will not tolerate any threat to the freedom of our nation.
It is not and never has been communism that has bothered us. If Russia had no interest in spreading communism around the globe, then we wouldn't have minded them. If communism had always been a happy little system that kept to itself and didn't get off on threatening my people with doom or flooding our nation with spies, then we wouldn't mind them.
They brought the fight to us... they filled our nation with spies... they tried to corrupt our neighbors... they frightened us... and as a frightened democracy, we decided to destroy them.
That is a lie. Every capitalist nation has always been vehemently opposed to communism in theory well before any distorted "practice". Karl Marx was kicked out of Prussia, France and Belgium for simply posting his views in newspapers (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Career or you can simply look at any biography of Marx).
Leading up to World War 1, President Woodrow Wilson organized the Bureau of Investigations for the purposes of disrupting anti-war sentiment. This was primarily accomplished (and almost exclusively accomplished) by attacking and disrupting leftist organizations, most notably the party of Eugene Debs, who was, along with other leftist leaders, prosecuted for agitating against the war and in favor of socialism (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare#Origins or any competent biography of Eugene Debs). As a result of the chaos of demonstrations against Eugene Debs' immoral imprisonment, police rounded up socialist leaders and imprisoned them. This was very similar to the disgusting behavior of the police in an earlier incident, the 1886 haymarket riots in Chicago. There, the police arrested and even executed without trial a number of leftist leaders who had been struggling for the establishment of an eight-hour working day.
This isn't unique to the U.S., of course. In Spain prior to the civil war, some anarchist leaders were executed by being tied up in weighted sacks and thrown into the sea. Police employed artillery and machineguns against protesting anarchists (source: Bookchin, The Heroic Years).
America has a nasty history of suppressing any real political dissent. The moment someone tries to advocate a change of the system they are met with utmost brutality. You don't even need to look any farther than the crackdowns on the Black Panther Party and the Civil Rights Movement to see that, plain as day.
That said, the USSR was an imperial power and the United States was right to be worried about it and try to counteract it. However, American anti-leftism goes much farther than our ignorant friend here believes. America is not innocent.

You are back on my ignore list, Dib. Sorry, but you do keep earning it. I will still read your PMs, but not to continue our discussions. You have violated even the small trust that goes into a PM conversation by publishing snipits that you felt damaging. If you have a short message to send me there, I will read it... but otherwise you're not talking to me anymore. If you're looking to distort and lie about the words of another, then look elsewhere. I am done with you.
Karmashock, I think you typo'd. Didn't you mean to say:
Yeah, I have simply raised my voice and shouted my beliefs instead of providing substantiation and degenerated to platitudes shortly before accusing my opponent of the same. I'm willing to twist anything I can twist to get my way and actually getting winged by my opposition requires that I pull out my last excuse: accuse him of lying and put him on the ignore list. It's basically just like neo-con talking heads in America. Back them into a corner and they just accuse their opposition of being liars, perverts or what-have-you (Newt Gingrich anyone?) rather than actually addressing the issues at hand.

I guess that's what it means to be neo-con: so convinced of your own rectitude that you'll not face anything that challenges your world-view.?

[Larsson7]

Start playing nice, boys and girls, or the thread gets locked.

This is NOT up for debate.

Please address your points of view with respect to each other.

kthx

[MVB]

Yay for getting reported threads in my mailbox. Glad Angel was on top of it.

[Karmashock]

That is a lie. Every capitalist nation has always been vehemently opposed to communism in theory well before any distorted "practice".
Nope, marx proposed that his new system would happen by global revolutions the world over. "the people of the world will rise up" and such... if that isn't a declaration of hostility, then I don't know what is.


When did Marx ever try to work with the system? He attacked it in his work, then proposed another system that would spontaneously cannibalize the existing system to feed it's growth.



THAT is where the hostility started against communism. When it proposed to destroy the existing system.



The capitalists did not start the fight. Capitalists have no natural inclination to war or physical violence. Such things are not helpful to production. Sure, it can be said that weapons makers make a great deal of money, but the rest of the economy tends to suffer... and THAT is a much larger percentage of the economy. Furthermore, a constant state of war is not sustainable unless it's a very small war. So there's no long term future in it. Additionally, such states tend to be poison to the market itself. However, that does not mean that they are bad at supplying a war effort. If you need the best weapons, of the greatest quality, in the greatest quantity, then look no further then capitalism for providing that. Furthermore, you will need food, medicine, clothing, ammunition, building materials, heavy machinery, etc. All of which will be provided for better by capitalism. During WW2 the US was producing more then twice what all the other war powers were producing allied and axis combined all by itself.

THAT is a HUGE part of what won the war.



So in short, capitalism did not start the fight... we're merely better 'at' fighting then flaccid commie states have ever been.
Yay for getting reported threads in my mailbox. Glad Angel was on top of it.
Sort of curious who is whining about this... I mean... they're an f'ing disclaimer on the whole current events forum...

Any chance at finding out who has a problem? I'm not interested in taking it out on them or getting vindictive... I don't really care... I'm just curious... at most I would talk to them to try and find out what their problem was and if it was something I could resolve...


I'd appreciate a reply MVB, if you check this thread again. :)
Love and peace, Karmashock.

[MVB]

Replied to your PM; can't share the name, as the report was made privately for a reason.

[DJTheBaron]

how long until they rename iraq, america 2

[Wicksy]

how long until they rename iraq, america 2
Why don't you tell us, as you're so clever?

[Karmashock]

eh? no... that's all he's got... a few cheap comments and he's spent.

[RazielDemon]

hey! I want more Karma vs Dibs!

I know it's boring for both of you by now but it's great entertainment...

[Karmashock]

hey! I want more Karma vs Dibs!

I know it's boring for both of you by now but it's great entertainment...
are you serious?:drool: