John Adams Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 Yes. Just as I take you seriously. Have you noticed that there is a debate here between mostly conservative minded people that has by-and-large been civil and the debate has been based on reason and earnest opinions? No "Bush bad", Cheney is a blowhard, evil corporations, you must be a racist if you don't agree with Obama, blah blah, blah schit from the people you usually debate? So, yes I think OC has earned the right to be taken seriously, just like most of the other people that have been involved in this conversation. You have Magox wrong--and this is coming from someone who has vigorously debated him on some other topics. He's far from a liberal. Just because he feels this way about nukes and torture doesn't mean he's a leftist. I see his perspective as someone who feels like the "good guys" (us) need to act like good guys.
3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 You have Magox wrong--and this is coming from someone who has vigorously debated him on some other topics. He's far from a liberal. Just because he feels this way about nukes and torture doesn't mean he's a leftist. I see his perspective as someone who feels like the "good guys" (us) need to act like good guys. No, I don't have Magox wrong. I never insinuated that he was a liberal at all. I view him as a conservative and noted that this debate was by-and-large confined to conservatives and that the tone and "meat" of the conversation was at a much higher level than the usual debated subjects on this board. No, "Conner you're an idiot" rants regardless of how deserved those comments are.
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 I don't give a **** if it's "shallow" or not, the explanation is simple and I stand by it. Okay, conner.
John Adams Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 Okay, RKFast There's no way to beat a "conner"ing. Either you go right to a duel or your honor is forever tarnished.
3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 There's no way to beat a "conner"ing. Either you go right to a duel or your honor is forever tarnished. I think I was a little premature in calling this great consevative only debate "meatier and on a higher level". Just the mention of Conner makes me look forward to recess.
Magox Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 There's no way to beat a "conner"ing. Either you go right to a duel or your honor is forever tarnished. I know... Anyway, does anyone know why the Politicians thread was shut down?
John Adams Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 I know... Anyway, does anyone know why the Politicians thread was shut down? I assumed you closed it. Doesn't seem like much was going on in there unless there was an absurd post made that we missed.
IDBillzFan Posted July 1, 2010 Author Posted July 1, 2010 I know... Anyway, does anyone know why the Politicians thread was shut down? You may have closed it inadvertantly. I think the only people who can close threads are mods and those who created the thread. But there was nothing in there I saw that was worthy of it being closed.
Adam Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 Yes. Just as I take you seriously. Have you noticed that there is a debate here between mostly conservative minded people that has by-and-large been civil and the debate has been based on reason and earnest opinions? No "Bush bad", Cheney is a blowhard, evil corporations, you must be a racist if you don't agree with Obama, blah blah, blah schit from the people you usually debate? So, yes I think OC has earned the right to be taken seriously, just like most of the other people that have been involved in this conversation. You are obviously referring to me with that comment. Cheney is a blowhard and holds a lot of the responsibility for what we have in the White House right now. You obviously are talking about someone else with the racist comments- I don't know who would have said that.......
3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 You are obviously referring to me with that comment. Cheney is a blowhard and holds a lot of the responsibility for what we have in the White House right now. You obviously are talking about someone else with the racist comments- I don't know who would have said that....... They were all comments I have heard and I used them to point out that up until at least the last several posts that a good serious discussion was going on, that was relatively civil and had a little 'meat" to it. It also was a direct "slam" on debates that included snarky little comments and wussy reasoning usually promulgated by whiny left wing little weasels. Yes, I do recall that you referred to Cheney as a blowhard but I still don't see it and you haven't really answered me on that. I'll ask you another question that maybe you can answer. How many votes did Cheney cast for President in the last election?
Adam Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 They were all comments I have heard and I used them to point out that up until at least the last several posts that a good serious discussion was going on, that was relatively civil and had a little 'meat" to it. It also was a direct "slam" on debates that included snarky little comments and wussy reasoning usually promulgated by whiny left wing little weasels. Yes, I do recall that you referred to Cheney as a blowhard but I still don't see it and you haven't really answered me on that. I'll ask you another question that maybe you can answer. How many votes did Cheney cast for President in the last election? You don't think the results of the Bush/Cheney administration had an effect on the election? Granted, the opposition was a step above John Kerry, but not many people would have had a chance. Cheney was for torture, but didn't have the guts to call it torture- he had to launch his ridiculous propaganda campaign to call it something else. Also, isn't he for gay marriage after he was against it?
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 You have Magox wrong--and this is coming from someone who has vigorously debated him on some other topics. He's far from a liberal. Just because he feels this way about nukes and torture doesn't mean he's a leftist. I see his perspective as someone who feels like the "good guys" (us) need to act like good guys. He stjll hasn't told me how he would have ended the war with Japan w/o killing civilians. Oh and before he jumps in I am interchanging "civilians" with his term "innocents"
Adam Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 He stjll hasn't told me how he would have ended the war with Japan w/o killing civilians. Oh and before he jumps in I am interchanging "civilians" with his term "innocents" While I personally don't know what could have done (I don't trust my knowledge of that era). I have been told by way too many people that dropping the bomb was good and that people that don't agree don't know what they are talking about. While I understand that some people do feel it was necessary, I can't even hold an intelligent conversation with those who think it was good.
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 While I personally don't know what could have done (I don't trust my knowledge of that era). I have been told by way too many people that dropping the bomb was good and that people that don't agree don't know what they are talking about. While I understand that some people do feel it was necessary, I can't even hold an intelligent conversation with those who think it was good. How can you criticize a decision you admit you know little about? Of course you can't have a intelligent conversation on the subject, you are all emotion and no facts. Again as I said to magox, give me your prefered way to end the war with Japan.
Adam Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 How can you criticize a decision you admit you know little about? Of course you can't have a intelligent conversation on the subject, you are all emotion and no facts.Again as I said to magox, give me your prefered way to end the war with Japan. I don't know- and that isn't what I am saying. What I said is that hearing these snot nosed kids saying that dropping a bomb that will kill millions of people and melt the faces off others is a good result. The soldiers that did it were sickened by it from what I do understand. It was a bad ending to part of a war that never should have needed to happen in the first place, if things were solved in WWI. Then again, my history class taught that President Nixon was the first to be impeached, so what do I know...... War is stupid and so is the human race
Magox Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 He stjll hasn't told me how he would have ended the war with Japan w/o killing civilians. Oh and before he jumps in I am interchanging "civilians" with his term "innocents" Again? Ok, you are now entering into RK Fast territory here, I never said w/o killing civilians. Man Jim, you are proving to be awfully thick headed here. Come on now. This is the third time, Where did I say w/o killing civilians? Some of you people really need to LERN HOW TO REED ENGRISH. Hey I get it, you think that it was justified to PURPOSELY kill over 200,000 innocent people in order to win the war with Japan. I dont. Thats one of the many differences between you and me.
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 I don't know- and that isn't what I am saying. What I said is that hearing these snot nosed kids saying that dropping a bomb that will kill millions of people and melt the faces off others is a good result. The soldiers that did it were sickened by it from what I do understand. It was a bad ending to part of a war that never should have needed to happen in the first place, if things were solved in WWI. Then again, my history class taught that President Nixon was the first to be impeached, so what do I know...... War is stupid and so is the human race Ending. Key word. Oh and the beginning and middle were not to great ether,even if people were just killed by such"humane" methods as TNT,Rather than A bombs. I am not debating if war is good or bad,just that America had the ways and means to end it and did so. As would any sane country. I don't recall Japans involment in WWl.
/dev/null Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 I don't recall Japans involment in WWl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_during_World_War_I
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 Again? OK, you are now entering into RIK Fast territory here, I never said w/o killing civilians. Man Jim, you are proving to be awfully thick headed here. Come on now. This is the third time now, Where did I say w/o killing civilians? Some of you people really need to LEARN HOW TO REED ENGLISH. Hey I get it, you think that it was justified to kill over 200,000 innocent people in order to win the war with Japan. I dint. Thats one of the many differences between you and me. AGAIN HOW WOULD YOU HAVE PERSONALLY ENDED THE WAR WITH JAPAN WITH OUT KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE? Easy to criticize the actions of others but give me your solution. You seem reluctant to give a answer on that one.
Recommended Posts