Jack
Forum
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 67
surely saddam, the mad mullah and the North korean bastard arent all that bad I thought because we didnt agree with the nazi...er I mean L2R then we must love the three little rascals...obvious isnt it we disagree with the wee moron bush so surely we must be 1001% behind the wicked three...mmm wears my iraquokoreiran loyalty armband gone??
As for the USSR i can see your point there, the US & USSR were so shit scared of each other that the status quo was pretty goddamn good for the world, at least the yanks werent zapping brit & canadian troops every time they flexed their muscles...
>>By BushisaManiac (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 22:30)
<The Mafia....are you kidding? There are some here that believe the Vice President had Kennedy killed. Your words reflect your age---pure lunacy--pure lunacy. Any other members of the Gang of Four that agree with her hypothesis??>
Hmmmm.... well if you would like to suggest otherwise..........
Well here's something which is directly quoted in wikipedia.....
>>By Tchock (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 23:12)
You're at it again Sarcoidiot. To summarize:
There is no Democracy in America.
Blacks and hispanics are disenfranchised.
The US is a reckless 'holder' of nuclear weapons.
The entire world should have to confer leadership and selection of the American President.
It has taken me four (as in Gang of Four) sentences to summarize what you blabbed abount in numerous, wordy paragraphs.
Let's try something.......
Intellect...the ability to see something clearly...as in DANGER in Iran's nuclear development.
Focus...the ability to see something through...to complete a thought.
Greenfyre:
There were atrocities committed in WWII....and none forgivable. Whether it be the rape of a villager, or the unexcused killing of the civilians that you mentioned (or one of you mentioned),,,and they are all bad...but how do those events compare to the Japanesemedical experiments in the Phillipines OR Hitler's gassing of millions? All are bad...truly only a matter of degree.
I'll ask again...and without rancor or sarcasm. I propose that BIAM (not Maniac) and Sarcophilus (not Sarcoidiot) and that Greenfyre and myself (notwithstanding a single or double digit IQ) try to find common ground. We have to police ourselves and we know who WE are.
Fresh start??
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 23:13)
Excuse me?
Computer, who told you to submit that?
"Waldron, however, traces important links in the involvement of the CIA and Mafia to what emerged as a Mafia hit on Kennedy, in an effort to stop Attorney General Robert Kennedy's pursuit of the Mafia. Three Mafia dons, Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante and Johnny Roselli, apparently found out about the plan for a coup in Cuba and then by using parts of it in their assassination of JFK, prevented a thorough investigation by key officials in the US government, in order to protect the coup plan/AMWORLD.
As an important consideration, the Mafia's involvement in AMWORLD the result of their working for the CIA on the earlier CIA-Mafia plots to assassinate Castro, which in turn was directly the consequence of the Mafia business interests that the Cuban Revolution disrupted. Pre-Revolution Cuba was the center of Mafia business activities throughout the Caribbean. See, for instance, Mafia in Havana by Enrique Cirules (Ocean Press 2003)."
Remember those big names - Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante and Johnny Roselli................
Of course......... CIA's sqeaky clean (They've got a No Mob Donations Policy.......... )
So, lv2read - My adolescent imagination did not make up what I said earlier.
Tchocky can be CLEVER sometimes. I mean, at age 17 - and I can form a basic argument..... I must be some sort of ADVANCED being???
>>By Tchock (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 23:17)
lv2read, would your 'common ground' be on the white house lawn?
Can you not offer a single argument against what we say - is that why you are asking for us to find things we agree on? (The phrase 'clutching at straws' comes to mind....)
May I ask, lv2read, was it ok for America to drop TWO Nuclear Bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As you should have come to realise, not everyone in a country supports their leadership - the civilians deserved what happened to them?
You were, of course barely the glint in the eye of your father, when at the time America seemed more concerned about activities in Soviet Russia, rather than Hitler's rise to power in Germany. Indeed your country as well as mine (and half of France) believed that Hitler would be rather healthy in comparison to Iosif Stalin.
'Hindsight is the besetting sin of the Historian' Rhys Davies....
>>By Tchock (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 23:29)
Actually, while we're on the subject of the USSR ....
What do you make of the USSR from 1921 (Begining of NEP) and lets say.......... early 1940s (Just as Beria is made Head of the NKVD)...??
It will be interesting to you hear your view points.......
>>By Tchock (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 23:42)
<<<So, lv2read - My adolescent imagination did not make up what I said earlier.
Tchocky can be CLEVER sometimes. I mean, at age 17 - and I can form a basic argument..... I must be some sort of ADVANCED being???>>>
At your age a conspiratorial view of things is very enticing. And you can vind a web site supports any conspiracy theory of your choosing.
The Mafia (in America) believes that it is being picked on by our government. And maybe it is. Our government is not in bed with the Mafia, or the Illuminati (did I spell that right?) or any other foreign influence....just ask Sadam.
Adolescent imaginations run pretty high with dreams of aliens and communication therewith. If you want fun reading, tap unto some of those pages.
You may or may not know of this.....but many people un America believe that aliens crashlanded in New Mexico (a state in the southwestern United States) in the early1950's. Eye wittness reports, the FBI sealing off the crash site, human wittnesses to the beings which were transported to a warehouse in town, a snippet of the space clothing that the aliens wore, and on and on and on. Well, guess what, President Clinton had heard those stories much the same as I did....and opened the file and reported to the people.
The government conducted a test (a crash test) and fashioned crash test dummies that resembled the appearance that most Americans believed that the aliens would resemble. And the President went into considerable detail. And, guess what? That has not stopped or slowed down or ended the rumors of Aliens in the New Mexico desert.
Now, some more reality. In the 2nd World War America solicited the assistance of the Mafia in clearing an air strip (for usage) for the Allies. That is pretty well documented. Please read my prior post.
>>By lv2read (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 23:46)
Well lv2read, there is a CONSIDERABLE difference between crackpot conspiracies of aliens coming to earth and the (slightly more) realistic view that if the Government can get something done - and there's a crooked businessman - mafia or otherwise - willing to help out with the $ they're going to get him/her/them on board.
Yes, we have ALL heard of Roswell.
Oh, hang on - here's another crackpot conspiracy for you..........
Saddam Hussein & Iraq had something to do with 9/11
Now there's NO proof for this
But you symbolize those ever-spreading rumours that the 2+2 certainly DOES = 5
>>By Tchock (Saturday, 8 Jul 2006 23:54)
Oh
& Here's another crackpot conspiracy......
That good old home-grown Texas family the Bushes & their dastardly deals with the.................... BIN LADENS!!!!
Yeah
Remember that crazy bearded man hiding out in the caves of Afghanistan....?
Well you'll never guess what - his family has been doing some business deals with the Bushes as well as a MAJOR company whom Mr. Georgy worked for.....
Oh yes - the Bin Laden's have QUITE a stake in the American Economy............. with shares in Microsoft... and even in Havard University..........
But here's the nitty gritty of the conspiracy.................
Oil.
Afghanistan.
$Billion oil deal with the Taliban....
ONE problem though
Taliban are NOT in favour with the good-hearted people of America, as well as the rest of the world.
Hmm... So they PULL out .... & start winding up the cogs of their brain.... tick tock tick tock.... Iraq - of course !
Iraq has mucho- a lot of oil!!!!! (& Removing Saddam would be GOOD in the eyes of those annoying citizens who have integrity).
George MUST get into power before he can set his Dad's friends idea rolling......
But hang on.....
Surely Bin Laden (Osama) is pissed that he's just lost out on $Billions???
Hmmm.... he'll be wanting payback???
Hey, you know what - this conspiracy's so imaginative, it would make a good book - what do you say, lv2read??
9/11
What happens just hours after it happens?
The only plane to take off is the plane removing all of the Bin Laden's out of the country....
What's the next thing that happens?
They "suspiciously" find the bombers' ID in their car. (Any imaginative mind might wonder why......)
Next thing that happens?
Bush tells his CIA agents to FIND links with Iraq - even make them up....................
Well, where is this leading to I wonder?
I'mon the edge of my seat just WONDERING WHY!!!!!
Hmmm.......... Gee - with this conspiracy, Roswell looks more probable.............
>>By Tchock (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 00:05)
And big people believe those things also. Neither your parent or I can explain the 'Why' of that.
And in a supermarket tabloid not thay many years ago there was a picture of Hillary and Bill Clinton meeting with an alien. To many, that must be true because there was a picture, right there!! Furthermore, there exist a web page that attests to its authenticity and documernts CIAS coverup of the story. However, it is too soon to confirm the card carrying Mafia membership of the Alien. Don't fall prey to that Mafia nonsense.
>>By lv2read (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 00:18)
<Don't fall prey to that Mafia nonsense>
Don't fall prey to the Government's nonsense, or are my warnings too late?
If you know of a web page which cites the authenticity of CIA documents of Roswell, then why can you not use this magical internet device to discover :
1. Facts
2. That the general majority of America/the World is Anti-Bush
3. That your media-gospel is on the whole propoganda spinned drivel.
Are you in favour of all 300+ assassination attempts(!!!!!) on Fidel's life over the past 40 odd years???
>>By Tchock (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 00:25)
A REPEAT OF AN EARLIER POST
I'll ask again...and without rancor or sarcasm. I propose that BIAM (not Maniac) and Sarcophilus (not Sarcoidiot) and that Greenfyre and myself (notwithstanding a single or double digit IQ) try to find common ground. We have to police ourselves and we know who WE are.
Fresh start??
>>By lv2read (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 00:25)
Am I not as worth as BushisaManiac and Sarcophilus and Greenfyre, lv2read?
Why is this?
We either have...
An ageist problem here
A sexest problem here
A Racial hostility to those from Ragnarok problem here
A muppet-phobe problem here
OR....
what.......... break my heart lv2read & tell me why I've been ousted out of the Fabulous Five's debate???
>>By Tchock (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 00:34)
Gang of Four? Gang of Five? Birds of a feather.....well, nevermind. You are now in the group, which has to be renamed, Gang of Five.
>>By lv2read (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 01:05)
Well that's great. :)
Are you in favour of all 300+ assassination attempts(!!!!!) on Fidel's life over the past 40 odd years???
& What are your views on Russia/USSR from 1921 to early 1940s??
>>By Tchock (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 01:11)
I appreciate your interest in world events, but there is danger brewing in Iran as we speak. Is that lost on you? Just pretent that your teacher has asked you about Iran. The question....how do we deal with the threat from Iran. Ignore it is NOT one of the multiple choice answers. Then, after you get this right, why don't we flush out some of the more outrageous conspiracy theories....surely youhave some juicy ones about Dodi and Lady Di???
Iran is a time bomb...wishing it to go away would be great if it would work. Wnlisting the Mafi to rectify the peoblem may even by suggested on one of your favorite sites, but I'm sorry that is not going to happen. What are we, as adults, going to do about this very serious problem?
I'll give you a clue. Read what President Bush has said recently.
>>By lv2read (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 01:33)
Well I see you've been reading my friend Helmet's profile.
And I see - scarily, we lv2read.... we have something in common. Our love of motorcycles. (Very sorry to hear why you cannot ride them anymore........)
You are right, Iran is a very important situation, which must be taken care of with careful presicioned thought.
Remember what happened at the end of World War One?
We were all too quick to punish Germany - we stripped it bare, forgetting of course that it was not the citizens of Germany who were at fault. This in turn was one of the greatest causes of World War Two - people saw democracy as a failure, but how could it have survived under the circumstances it was under - and then the Wall Street crash to have it Germany so badly..............
>>By Tchock (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 02:06)
The decadence and collapse of the Weimar Republic surprised the Germans most of all--and it may be true (speculation??) that Hitler;s rise was attritubeted to the fortuitness of sheer timing as much as anything. I have German contacts on this site and I have come to know and to respect them. And I am sure that Iranians are as gracious and kind spirited as any other people anywhere.
Saying that, I also must add that Germany, the US, your country and others are political entities as well. And, by design or not, we cannot avoid political realities---this is not one world order and probable will not be in either of our lifetimes, if at all.
Political entities respect strength, moral strength, military strength and other means of capturing and sustaining leadership. I fear for Israel and the fragile peace in the West Bank. I fear that Irans statements questioning the legitimacy of Israel alpng with the Hamas long standing antagonism towards Tel Aviv--that conflict escalation is almost guaranteed by Iran's beligerant attitude. In America there is a joke that one of the greatest causes of fire and insurance losses is the friction caused by rubbing $500,000 of inventory against a $10,000,000 policy. The analogy being the collective beligerant Arab states against the lonely Israel is not exactly a fair fight but one that coulc escalate and involve many more entities such as your country and most certainly mine. The situation is explosive. Let's not wait, or dare that to happen. The President is offering economic incentives, and let us give that a chance to work. But, lets monitor the nuclear research very, very carefully. President Bush'es leadership here is anything but heavy handed.
>>By lv2read (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 03:28)
L2R
Agreeing on common ground sounds good. Let's start with these points:
1) Everyone here is treated the same regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship, sexual orientation, profession, or ANY other irrelevent criteria.
Under NO circumstances are any of these to be refered to, even obiquely, when prefacing a point unless there is clear and direct relevance.
For example, it is TOTALLY unacceptable to say something like " Just pretent that your Rabbi has asked you about Iran."
2) Everyone here is held accountable ONLY for what they say. You can tell what someone said because you can cut and paste out of their message and then put it in quotes.
If you can't copy it from one their posts then, they didn't say it and it is TOTALLY unacceptable to pretend that they did.
3) Everyone here is held accountable for what they say. If a statement is fairly challenged and the author is asked to provide evidence, then they are obliged to provide some sort of factual support from a credible source.
If after a reasonable interval, say a coulpe of days, the author does not substantiate their point, then it is a given that they concede that they are wrong.
4) When someone's point has been challanged and a credible source which they are unable to refute shows them to be wrong, they act in a mature manner and acknowledge that they were wrong.
So how about those points as things we agree on? If you have any problem with one or more of them please state exactly what you think the problem is.
Thank you
>>By greenfyre (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 03:40)
"The decadence ... of the Weimar Republic ... --and it may be true (speculation??) that Hitler;s rise was attritubeted to the fortuitness of sheer timing as much as anything."
Decadence? What decadence do you refer to please? and what surprise?
Apparently there were some other things going on such as a depression and hyper-inflation that destabalized the country politically. "The Weimar Republic had some of the most serious economic problems ever experienced by any Western democracy in history" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_republic
The extreme poverty and desperation split and polarized the populace between socialist and fascists. European and American Industrialists were afraid that Germany might become the first European Bolshevik State, so they started secretely funding the Nazis party. These funders included Ford, Hearst, and Du Pont. http://www.historycooperative.org NOSPACE /journals/llt/51/pauwels.html
Another Hitler supporter was Prescott Bush, father of G. Bush and grandfather of G. W. Bush. [just google Hitler "Prescott Bush"]
Support for Hitler by Industrialists increased after he purged Ernst R�hm and the leftist section of the party from the Sturmabteilung, on June 30th, 1934.
It is interesting to note the a maxim of the Sturmabteilung was: "Terror must be broken by terror" from Why Hitler?: The Genesis of the Nazi Reich by Samuel W. Mitcham
>>By greenfyre (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 04:09)
Whoops
I missed proposed common ground point 5 - here it is:
5) No one, under any circumstances, summarizes someone else's words. If a summary seems helpful then the author is asked to summarize what s/he said.
>>By greenfyre (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 04:17)
Greenfyre:
Very good talking points.
1. "Everyone here is treated the same regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship, sexual orientation, profession, or ANY other irrelevent criteria."
Maturity is not an irrevelant criteria....nor can it be assumed or taken for granted.
Oveerlooking a major point. Degradung comments/belittling comments (such as Bush is an idiot) not tolerated period. We treat one another and our respective counteries and its leaders with sincere respect.
2. I will endeavor to improve in this regard. If two or more make the same point, it may get a little tricky---but I agree in principle.
3. Beg to differ...there is no factual right or wrong for opinions. As you know you can find a statistic to support anything. You must be careful here. Why don't you rephrase this one and retransmit??
4. Same as for (3) above. There are no facts to substantiat that Tony Blair is a good leader. There is no right or wrong to my statement the Israel is in danger.
5. Would like to add one here--personal privacy of all. My service record, or lack of it, my background, my heritage, just how white or wealthy or educated I am is not germane to our discussions. You are good with words--please assist here.
And thank you!!!
>>By lv2read (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 04:34)
L2R
>> Maturity is not an irrevelant criteria....nor can it be assumed or taken for granted.
Here we are dealing with what people say, not who they are. If a point makes sense, then it makes sense regardless of any of their personal attributes. If they are talking nonsense, then their personal attributes and life choices are equally irrelevant.
Do not forget that agism cuts both ways – if someone who is young is presumed to be immature, older members may be presumed to be senile. Neither is fair.
I repeat, age is NOT a basis for judging anyone who uses this space.
>> Overlooking a major point. Degrading comments/belittling comments (such as Bush is an idiot) not tolerated period. We treat one another and our respective countries and its leaders with sincere respect.
Agreed, with the understanding that any one and any place is open to criticism for ACTIONS, but never for characteristics. Thus we may say that this or that action by Tony Blair was foolish, but NOT that Tony Blair is a fool. This applies equally to one another in this space – statements are fair game for criticism, but not the person.
>> 2. I will endeavor to improve in this regard. If two or more make the same point, it may get a little tricky---but I agree in principle.
Follow the simple rule that I do, cut and paste the actual text. This not only keeps us honest, it is a courtesy to the other person who may not remember their exact words. These kind of things do get confusing and I find this habit invaluable in keeping my own thinking straight.
>> 3. Beg to differ...there is no factual right or wrong for opinions.
Opinions may be identified as they are pre-faced by such statements as “I believe” or “I think”. Thus “Louis the XIV was immensely popular with the people” is given as though it were a fact and is hence open to challenge, while “I believe Louis the XIV was a great leader” is obviously an opinion and cannot be challenged as though it were presented as a fact.
Of course I might ask you why you think Louis the XIV was so great, but there is no way to challenge your belief that he was. That would be your opinion and you have every right to hold it even if I trot out 10 million pages of information suggesting he was a raving maniac.
>> As you know you can find a statistic to support anything
Not always. But if we accept that as true, then surely the author can find some evidence as well, in which case we must all acknowledge that the situation is obviously more nuanced than we thought.
If one or the other statistic/information is revealed to be false then we all learn something, and the author of the false position is understood to have taken their position in good faith, but was unfortunately misled by some fraudulent source.
>> 4. Same as for (3) above. There are no facts to substantiat that Tony Blair is a good leader. There is no right or wrong to my statement the Israel is in danger.
Agreed as far as it goes, but there is evidence for and against, and it is perfectly fair to ask that everyone share what information they have so that everyone can look at all the evidence and then make the best judgement they can.
It is fine to begin with a position such as “Tony Blair is a good leader”, but if asked to explain why it is appropriate to provide some evidence. Simply stating one another’s opinions at each other is not a discussion, it is a duel.
Let’s face it, none of the issues we deal with here are clear cut and easy. There is a lot of contradictory evidence and we all have to do the best we can to make sense of it all.
Making sense of it all involves learning new information and trying to understand one another’s reasoning. We cannot learn if people do not provide the information which they base their opinion on, or the reasons for their opinion.
>> 5. Would like to add one here--personal privacy of all. My service record, or lack of it, my background, my heritage, just how white or wealthy or educated I am is not germane to our discussions. You are good with words--please assist here.
Agreed. Personal information is NOT germane unless the original person somehow makes it so. For example, if I say “when I was in the civil service” then it is fair to ask if I was in the civil service, and what department.
However, it is always the author who creates the context or volunteers their personal information. If they do not volunteer it, then it is not relevant and not to be brought into the discussion.
As in #1, criticisms of ideas or statements are fair, criticisms of the person is never so.
I agree to all of that.
>>By greenfyre (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 05:29)
Why don't you scrub the wording a little bit and I think that it will be fine. I do not want to hear, however, that Bush'es action is proof that his IQ is below 80. I will be respectful of each of you and of your opinions and of your countrys' leaders. I'm exaggerating here ONLY to make a point. Because I differ with you, I will not characterize your views or yourself as stupie, dim or whatever. We need to police ourselves on this.
I think that we are on the right track.
>>By lv2read (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 06:27)
>> I will be respectful of each of you and of your opinions and of your countrys' leaders.
For my money you can rubbish my leader all you want, but your point is taken.
Frankly if I believe a particular leader/person to be an idiot then I should have no trouble finding some actions or statement of his/hers that I can show to have been idiotic. If cannot find such an action or statement, then obviously I need to revise my opinion.
>> I will not characterize your views or yourself as stupid, dim or whatever.
Agreed re: personal attacks, they are always unacceptable.
By all means have a go at anything I actually say. Find some evidence that I am wrong and share it with me. I make an effort to know what I am talking about, but being merely human I am certainly not always right. How can I possibly learn and grow if this is not brought to my attention. I am not here to prove myself right, I am here to test my world view, and if possible, improve it.
I’ll have another look at wording tomorrow and we'll see what the others think, but for now it is late and I am off to bed.
>>By greenfyre (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 06:44)
Don't count me in on this anymore folks, I'm getting bored with all the dogma and L2R's inability to answer a straight question
Ciao and have fun
>>By BushisaManiac (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 12:08)
How did this rise out of a literature discussion board called 'Jack'?
What the hell is going on??
>>By Flagg (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 13:37)
This discussion arose from a certain person esposuing his views on the 'brokeback mountain' board over at gnovies,
some of us although responding to his outburst were looking for an alternative forum
I looked around and found this board with only one post on it and seemingly no actual author to discuss, so i sort of hi-jacked this board for further discussion, allowing the fans of brokeback mountain to talk about that film without having to read all the political shite that we have been going on about.
>>By BushisaManiac (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 15:34)
Hmmm.
Are rules REALLY what we need?
We are all adults (ok, I'm a few months shy of that one...)
But - I think we could judge ourselves, whether something is inappropriate etc...
Perhaps we should just agree to debate something. Properly.
No more meandering around questions, or who said what about George Bush and things like that. Yeah, there are going to be somethings we disagree on - but we're ALL mature enough to determine that they are not personal insults etc. I may like a certain music band - others may not, but I will not stop them from saying that they think they are rubbish (even if they ARE a bunch of Dance Music fiends....haha).
Do you understand where I'm coming from?
To be honest, lv2read - you can say ANYTHING you like about Tony Blair and this country's government - I will NOT be offended.
We're here to debate.
So let's just get on with it!!
Does anyone else agree with me???
>>By Tchock (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 15:38)
I wish it was that easy.....but it isn't. We could dance (pardon the pun) in circles indefinitely. And I agree with Greenfyre here that some groundrules and structure/format wouldn't hurt a bit. You may not be offended by what is said about Blair BECASE you've probably said more degrading things (about him) than I could ever think of!! c But I am offended when people (not pointing fingers) are disrespectful of me, my country and my President. And when I respond in kind, my fellow combatants take umbrage---as they should. BIAM's post above demonstrates the futility of continuing in the same vein as before.
>>By lv2read (Sunday, 9 Jul 2006 15:52)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 67
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS