• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

korean hostage beheaded

DavidJames said:
Do you not see the irony in that comment?
Click to expand...

How so?

Do I not equally have the right to express a desire to punch him in the face?
 
Phrost said:
Why would I be concerned with impressing anyone?

I'm absolutely sincere about wanting to punch this person in the face, having served in the Army defending this douche's freedom to run his mouth.

Fortunately for people like you two, there isn't such a device. If there were, I'd wager we'd see less of you, and your smug comments.
Click to expand...

Your desire to react violently as a substitute for honest discourse is understandable.

I doubt few here suspect you to be much of a threat intellectually.

I commend you for your military service but I'm tired of people using that as though it gives them some sort of preferential treatment when it comes to expressing their opinions.

Everyone here has the right to express their opinion and nobody has to check with you for your permission.
 
You know what, this has touched a nerve with me, so I'm bowing out before I (further?) paint an inaccurate picture of myself as a right-wing 'cold, dead hands' type, which I'm not.

Evildave and his ilk absolutely have the right to espouse whatever ideaology they chose, and I support their right to express it in the public forum. (Though the JREF is not necessarily a public forum).

I stand by what I've said, but as this is spiraling towards a place I don't want to go, I'm done with this thread.
 
If you are willing to paint me as a 'left wing' whatever, I am perfectly content to imagine you as having 'cold, dead hands' (presumably to pry a firearm from).

I voted for Dubya in 2000. I voted for 'Mr. Pronoun' in 1996, and Ross Perot in 1992. All it took was four years of Dubya's administration teach to me what depths the 'Grand Old Party' has sunk to.

I mean really, at what point do you stop trying to defend torturers who start wars just so they can dip deeply into public funds to pay off their political supporters?

For me, that's early on. As soon as they start appealing to cowards to surrender their rights and ideals for a little perceived safety, really.

Naturally, I agree it's also your right to support people who torture and murder for a little cash. I don't have to respect you for it, though.
 
It's customary to provide some kind of factual support for outlandish claims such as yours.
Torturers who start wars to pay off... etc. etc.

God. I expect better form this place.
 
Phrost said:


How so?

Do I not equally have the right to express a desire to punch him in the face?
Click to expand...

Phrost, I have to say I'd love to watch you punch EDave in the gob! :D Hell, I'd pay to see it! I'll even get your back so AUP or Mr.M doesn't try to sneak up on ya!

If Dave is willing we should get you guys inside a ring @ TAM3...we could sell tickets and donate the proceeds to JREF.

What say you?
-z
 
Your desire to react violently as a substitute for honest discourse is understandable.

It sure is, especially when it is clear he meant he merely WANTS to do it, not that he WILL do it. The whole point of his post is that this is the sort of feeling some posters deserve, not that one should act on those feelings.

The reason is that at a certain point, there is no such thing as an "honest discourse" with someone who thinks Abu Gharib scandal is equivalent to beaheding innocents, any more than there is one with a flat-earther.

I doubt few here suspect you to be much of a threat intellectually.

He's more-or-less on the right, after all; what do you expect? We all know right-wingers are stupid and no match for the superior left-wingers. That's because the left-wingers understand that prejudice against other groups is wrong, unlike those morons on the right!
 
rikzilla said:


Phrost, I have to say I'd love to watch you punch EDave in the gob! :D Hell, I'd pay to see it! I'll even get your back so AUP or Mr.M doesn't try to sneak up on ya!

If Dave is willing we should get you guys inside a ring @ TAM3...we could sell tickets and donate the proceeds to JREF.

What say you?
-z
Click to expand...

I'd said I was done with the thread, but perhaps I should have said I was done with that line of discussion.

If he'd be willing, and sign appropriate legal waivers, I'd be more than happy to meet him in the ring. I'm not sure how fair that'd be, however, all things considered.

The real reason I responded is that such a scenario would be entirely possible seeing as we're planning our "Bullshidocon: MegaThrowdown" in Vegas that very weekend, and you offered me an opening for a blatant plug.

I've been meaning to offer TAM attendees free entry to our 'event' as a way of supporting the JREF. But as it's going to mainly be a loose gathering of martial artists discussing standards in training, MA hucksters and such, before beating on each other (sparring) to help determine what works and what doesn't, I wasn't sure there'd be enough crossover interest to warrant a formal offer to Mr. Randi and crew.

Maybe we could coax ED to stop by. ;)
 
Skeptic said:
Your desire to react violently as a substitute for honest discourse is understandable.

It sure is, especially when it is clear he meant he merely WANTS to do it, not that he WILL do it. The whole point of his post is that this is the sort of feeling some posters deserve, not that one should act on those feelings.

The reason is that at a certain point, there is no such thing as an "honest discourse" with someone who thinks Abu Gharib scandal is equivalent to beaheding innocents, any more than there is one with a flat-earther.

I doubt few here suspect you to be much of a threat intellectually.

He's more-or-less on the right, after all; what do you expect? We all know right-wingers are stupid and no match for the superior left-wingers. That's because the left-wingers understand that prejudice against other groups is wrong, unlike those morons on the right!
Click to expand...

Wow, two strawmen for the price of one.

I never addressed anything other than his ‘desire’ nor did I ever say or imply that his statement indicated any real threat.

And I disagree that there cannot be ‘honest discourse’ with someone who thinks Abu Gharib scandal is equivalent to beheading innocents as in a previous thread I had no problem articulating my opinion concerning what a fallacy it is to associate the acts of these terrorists to specific administrative policies.

The scandal at the prison no doubt provided them with valuable propaganda but one would have to be naïve to believe that these acts of terror would not be happening and attributed some other infraction had it not been for that scandal.

See? It’s easy.

This whole left vs. right bugaboo that so many on both sides here use as a substitute for reason is certainly silly but I don’t think you’ll find any posts I have made where I resorted to such at tactic and to imply that I do from the post you a referring to is pure fiction. My comments were limited to only what he posted.

I for one have not formed any ill-opinion of Phrost based on a single post. This is an emotional topic and I understand that he was only venting his frustration. Big deal, I’ve done it many times myself but I admit that I was wrong when I have. It does little to further the discussion.
 
Skeptic said:
Your desire to react violently as a substitute for honest discourse is understandable.
Click to expand...
It sure is, especially when it is clear he meant he merely WANTS to do it, not that he WILL do it. The whole point of his post is that this is the sort of feeling some posters deserve, not that one should act on those feelings.
Click to expand...
I don't know. He posted:

I'm being completely honest that if this was said to my face with the sincerity 'evildave' has expressed, said person would likely get punched.
Click to expand...
A statement which I still think is far below him. Why did he want to puch him in the face? Because he "compared religious nutcases who cut the heads off non-combatants and a nation which pursues a war against such nutcases". (Which I can't see is a fair description of what was said, but that's another story).

Phrost, honestly: So we get upset about arguments from people we don't agree with and don't like. Is your answer to punch him in the face and get it over with (assuming you punch hard enough)? Isn't that what trailertrash is doing?
 
crackmonkey said:
It's customary to provide some kind of factual support for outlandish claims such as yours.
Torturers who start wars to pay off... etc. etc.

God. I expect better form this place.
Click to expand...

Alas, the weekly reports of torture seem to whiz right by.

Of course, it's not just the U.S. that practices torture. The UK does as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...24.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/24/ixnewstop.html

"We only wanted to torture people in Guantanamo Bay, really!
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...,7025289.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines
WASHINGTON -- Forced nudity, hooding and the use of dogs all were interrogation techniques approved for use in Guantanamo Bay prison -- but, top Bush administration lawyers insisted this week, never meant to be applied in Iraq.
Click to expand...

So, the president himself did authorize torture. He just "claims" he only authorized it in Guantanamo Bay. Let's get real. Torture is torture wherever it takes place.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...o_pr_wh/prisoner_abuse_dissension_1&printer=1
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration didn't ease its hard-line tactics for interrogating terror suspects until after concerns were raised repeatedly by State Department and military officials worried about violating international and U.S. law, memos released by the White House show.
Click to expand...

Now, a pop quiz: Vice President Dick Cheney was a big wheel of what corporation that was granted multi-billion dollar contracts to 'Rebuild Iraq' without any other bidders being allowed in for any consideration? Haliburton. Does Cheney have personal financial interests in Haliburon after he's out of office? Yes, oh, yes.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm
The Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) unit of Halliburton (HAL: up $0.54 to $20.66, Research, Estimates), of which Cheney was CEO from 1995 to 2000, said late Monday that it was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure.

President Bush Tuesday asked Congress for $489.3 million to cover the cost of repairing damage to Iraq's oil facilities, much or all of which could go to Halliburton or its subcontractors under the terms of its contract with the Army.
Click to expand...

Not that I expect any of you intellectually lazy people who are fast to cleave to right-wing party lines in blatant disregard of the daily flood of evidence to click through and read any of this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/politics/main620517.shtml
(CBS/AP) A Pentagon e-mail indicates that a multimillion-dollar Halliburton contract for Iraqi reconstruction was "coordinated" with the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, the company's former chief executive, a newsmagazine reports.
Click to expand...

I dunno, they seem to go on for years about a tiny little real estate deal in the Clintons' past, yet nobody seems to interested in Dick Cheney and his multi-billion dollar bilking of taxpayers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom