Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
981

Am I a racist?

Back in 2009 I felt America was ready for a change. I was sick of Bush, sick of the seemingly endless wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq that seemed spiraling out of control. I was hopeful that Obama could bring America socialized medicine like they have in Europe and it sounded like a good idea.

As soon as Obamacare is implemented, implemented with a giant loophole favoring big business, a lot of my friends and co-workers were dropped from near full time to 20-22 hours a week. This huge cut in hours & pay forced several of them to look for other mostly part time jobs so they could survive but still not get work benefits. They have to work 2 jobs to pay a massive premium on health care they are forced to get and can not afford.

Not only that, but Obama’s foreign policy is a total nightmare all across the board. He has done so many personally stupid things, like bow to the Saudi King, that it’s beyond comprehension.

He blew any chance with the 2009 Iranian uprising:

I quote this from Wikipedia:

"He responded that “the last thing I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for?those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States”

Yet he has no qualms taking down Qaddafi in Libya and does nothing to stop the killing going on in Syria and many other countries due to Muslim terrorists.

I’m tired of writing this, here ya go:

Anyhow, judging from all of this, does this make me a somehow a racist because I have legitimate gripes against the Obama Administration?

How so, exactly?

982

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Now were just going to pretend libertarians are “leftist”?

lol, wow. This really just gets better with every post. It isn’t enough to confuse Contemporary Liberal with Classically Liberal, now we’re pretending the Left and Right on the spectrum are the opposite?

[/quote]

If you read properly, the term libertarian was created by anarchists in the 1600’s who were basically pre marxist communists. A basic history book could tell you that.[/quote]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term libertarian was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to the metaphysical belief in free will, as opposed to determinism. It first appeared in 1789, when William Belsham wrote about libertarianism in opposition to “necessitarian”, i.e. determinist, views.

Pre-Marxist communist anarchists in the 1600s, you say? Are you referring to the Puritan “Diggers”?

983

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Musashi92: The earth is flat

Beans: Nah man, look here, this study shows it isn’t the case at all.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

Everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

Musashi92: That study is wrong because of a bunch of things I’m not going to link to, but claim anyway

everyone else: Dude, the study addresses that, and yeah, you’re wrong

Musashi92: show me

Beans: read the preface.

[/quote]

Beans vs. Musunni92

FIGHT!

Finish Him!

Beans… WINS!

Flawless Victory

984

Man, this thread gives me deja vu for the Roe vs Wade thread, where we had some cocky Brit waltz in and argue incessantly over the minutiae of an argument that wasn’t even the topic of the thread, and then some other guy who came in sounding not so stupid to begin with, but just kept digging with that idiot shovel until he was in over his head.

And Beans knows exactly what I’m talking about.

985

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

I fuckin’ luv you, dude. (no homo)[/quote]

Well, you know the feeling is mutual (no homo). And after reading this post:

[quote]You’re ASSUMING there are only two years left in his presidency. In the next 15 months he has the potential to conjure up an “emergency” and declare Martial Law.

In THIS reality, I’ve got property in South America, property in rural Virginia and boat. I’m working on a second passport. I have three alternatives to be away from much of the bullshit.

Can’t wait.[/quote]

…I have to conclude that you are my long lost twin brother.

I’m guessing Argentina. Only country in South America that I would consider, and it’s on the right side of the continent to be accessible by boat from Virginia without having to mess with the Canal.

You can get an Argentine passport by making an “investment” in the Argentine economy, but Bulgaria is cheaper, and you get EU priveleges along with it. And hey…Bulgarian women, right?

986

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]OGrady wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]OGrady wrote:
I’m just trolling Brosef.
[/quote]

Then how did you think people would react?[/quote]

With levity. [/quote]

You gotta be funny then.[/quote]

Lightness, different from laugher.

But, point taken. Thank you for the criticism.

987

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]OGrady wrote:

Man, you’ve got a lot of hate for me stemming from a relatively few words exchanged. The more you attack me, the more foolish you look. Rule #1 of dealing with my unoriginal and tired approach: don’t feed the trolls! I’m just trolling Brosef. I’m sorry if I genuinely offended you – I didn’t mean anything personally, just for a bit of fun.

Have a good debate y’all! [/quote]

Ok, if you are not being your “real personality” in this thread, and have come aboard merely to troll, then why are you pissed because other posters have picked up on this? If you are generally concerned about showing your “real” personality, why not try adding something useful or constructive to the thread & argument? Then, maybe people would respect what you have to say.

Just my 2 cents.[/quote]

I’m not sure I was ever pissed at anybody for picking up on the fact that I was trolling. Nor is showing my real personality something I’m particularly concerned with. And I contributed something I thought would be useful: a flippant and over-the-top criticism for the flippant and over-the-top off-topic/politics board on an exercise website. I didn’t realize quite how seriously and personally some these ideas are being taken. I stand corrected, however, in my approach. Actually thank you, though, for the mild-mannered criticism.

988

There are three things you can’t fake: fucking, fighting, and comedy.

Either you can do it or you can’t.

And generally the people who say they can do it well are the ones who do it the poorest.

Sorry, just the way it is.

989

Timing and delivery.

991

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And generally the people who say they can do it well are the ones who do it the poorest.

[/quote]

There’s a Buddhist saying somewhere in there:

If you think you’ve achieved Enlightenment, you haven’t.

993

519×710 34.3 KB

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

And hey…Bulgarian women, right?[/quote]

POIDNH[/quote]

Here you go, Push.

994

That right-wing extremist Giuliani is at it again:

“Look, this man was brought up basically in a white family, so whatever he learned or didn’t learn, I attribute this more to the influence of communism and socialism” than to his race, Giuliani told the Daily News.

“I don’t (see) this President as being particularly a product of African-American society or something like that. He isn’t” the former mayor added. “Logically, think about his background…The ideas that are troubling me and are leading to this come from communists with whom he associated when he was 9 years old” through family connections.

When Obama was 9, he was living in Indonesia with his mother and his stepfather. Giuliani said he was referencing Obama’s grandfather having introduced him to Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party.

Giuliani, a 2008 presidential hopeful, set off a national firestorm when he told an exclusive gathering of conservatives, pols and media figures on Wednesday night, "I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that this President loves America…

The former mayor also brought up Obama’s relationship with “quasi-communist” community organizer Saul Alinsky and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

“He doesn’t love you. He doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up: To love this country,” Giuliani said of Obama at the Manhattan dinner, which was arranged for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

995

Ok, forgive me if you will, but I want to talk once again about Obama’s foreign policy disasters, since I touched on it briefly (if we forget about 10 pages for a second) in the post above.

There are people in this forum who will remain nameless because if I perchance throw out an incorrect name it’ll piss some people off for some reason. (WTF? Funny how in that instance, a person I HADN"T named gave me the best reply.) But getting off this tangent, there are some people on this board who say we should not have supported Qaddafi or remained neutral during the Libyan civil war or that his reign of 45 years was so tarnished with mass executions, imprisonments, torture and terrorism we should not have welcomed him as an ally once he decided to play nice with the West, give up his Nuke program, arrest terrorists and go after al-Qaeda.

That being said can someone please explain the logic of letting the Qadaffi regime fall, or at least hasten it (I know, I know, to prevent THOUSANDS of deaths), or at least your displeasure of being an ally of Mr. Qadaffi and not supporting him or staying the F out of the situation since he was, in fact, an ally, or just the simple fact of merely being an ally of Qadaffi, civil war, thousands of deaths, the intervention, the rise of ISIS be damned… in other words, (hopefully to God I have covered every single minor aspect of this as humanly possible.)

Ally of Qadaffi = bad.

So why did we reach out to Cuba, reach out (unsuccessfully) to Iran when they meet the same criteria as Qadaffi’s government as far as being a ruthless dictatorship?

Supporting Qadaffi = bad
Becoming friends with Cuba = good?

Why?

Why send the olive leaf to Cuba? Why to Iran? Why are we still allies with China, why still support Saudi Arabia, and bow to their freaking leader? Pakistan? (who hid Bin Laden) Why support the Muslim Brotherhood, who’s organization gave rise to Al-Qaeda? Why support the intervention in to some countries and not others? Why let Yemen fall? The list is endless.

(Notice how I have resorted to using caveman speech to make the argument as simple as I can since using a word like “safe” can be jumped upon and turned into a 10 page argument of minutiae.)

996

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Says the dude who couldn’t refute the UN study, so pretends it didn’t happen, and has resorted to just calling white people racist.
[/quote]

I skimmed through that lil study. I knew you guys were violent, and while that study is not really teh proofz, it does suggest that the USA are indeed one of the front runners for rapin and killin and assaultin and all that nasty shit evil doers like to do.
Thanks Obama.

Yeah yeah pick pocketing oh noes…stealing bicycles is pretty big in Holland huh? I am shocked and appalled.

Drug related problems are bound to increase when old geezers bitch if a group of teens are smoking dat reefah in the park without fear of being thrown to jail, but dat aint really a problem now is it, ya rectum Magellan?

Speaking of drugs, I ain’t got no time to explain you reality, I gotta go snort some snow out of a hooker’s tits. I hope them coppers don’t catch me, the penalty of 0 minutes jail time and contributing to drug related problems would be too much for me to handle.

Hey beansie, ya scrotum prospector, if I invaded your home and deadlifted yo bed with you n yo hag sleeping there, would you shoot me?

997

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Ok, forgive me if you will, but I want to talk once again about Obama’s foreign policy disasters, since I touched on it briefly (if we forget about 10 pages for a second) in the post above…

…

…(Notice how I have resorted to using caveman speech to make the argument as simple as I can since using a word like “safe” can be jumped upon and turned into a 10 page argument of minutiae.)[/quote]

I’m going to assume you’re not referring to me in this post, because Qaddafi’s having been a bad guy throughout his career did not figure into my argument at all.

But “safe” is not minutiae. If your argument relies on your calling something safe/more-safe/less-safe, and you’re wrong about calling it safe/more-safe/less-safe, then a disagreement about safety is actually a disagreement about the legitimacy of your position, and if it’s shown that “safe/more-safe/less-safe” was misused, your original argument has been defeated. That’s debate.

998

I used a word wrong ergo all of my positions are wrong on any topic. No seriously. So. Cuba. Right or wrong to forgive the regime for years of oppression? It was or is wrong in Libya’s case after all. No?

999

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I used a word wrong ergo all of my positions are wrong on any topic.[/quote]

It wasn’t about the right or wrong word. Your position relied on a false premise – this is a logical rather than a semantic problem. The rest was a big fireworks show of fallacy and terrible argumentation, which I documented and commented on extensively. As for this new question you’re chasing, I don’t know why you think it has anything to do with me: I literally just explained to you that the logical line you’re drawing between Cuba and Libya does not apply to my Libya argument, which did not argue for Qaddafi’s ouster on grounds of his having been a bad guy. This should be clear to you, but I’m almost sure it isn’t.

More generally, see my post about the first words in our three-post exchange if you’d like to know why I’m not going to start discussing a new topic with you.

1000

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I used a word wrong ergo all of my positions are wrong on any topic. No seriously. So. Cuba. Right or wrong to forgive the regime for years of oppression? It was or is wrong in Libya’s case after all. No?[/quote]

He documented your big fireworks show of fallacy and false argumentation extensively! Sheesh.