BF2S Forums Who is the most extreme 'Neo-Con' on the D&ST forum?

Cougar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Perhaps, it isn't that I disagree with your values or where you stand, so much as, I just flat out don't like you.  You know how some people just get on your bad side and you don't quite know why and you really don't have a good reason to dislike them, but you do?

Yeah, you're that person, I just don't like you.  Period.

Yeah, I know what ya mean, but all you have to judge me on are my posts, soooooooooooo if you admit that you can't disagree with them, you really have nothing else to dislike, since there is nothing else about me that you know.

Are ya sure the problem is, you can't justify your beliefs when they are countered with reason, reality and truth??

Don't make it more complicated than it is.  I think you're a douche bag, end of story.  I don't really need a reason, but if you really want one, the fact you have interrogated me on why I don't like you, makes me think that you are a douche bag.

You are a douche bag.

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I beleive, as you all well know in:

1. PERSONAL RESPONISIBILITY

2. helping only those that help themselves, and those that have reasons why they can't, ( children, and disabled)

3. defend our selves and our allies.

4. border control and arrest and deport ALL that are here illegally.

5. total freedom, except in instances that deny someone else their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With that goes the consequences, good or bad, for your actions.

6. punishment that fits the crime.

I gotta ask.........What is it that makes me so "extreme"??

Seeing as nobody else will answer you and you seem so desperate for an answer, I'll give you one (and an answer):

1. Fine, no problem with that.
2. I assume you would extend some help to more than just children and the disabled? Say the poor for example? or do all those starving third world populations fall into the category of 'those that do not help themselves' for you?
3. Defend, yes. Invade, NO! Outstay your welcome, NO! Conduct military action in a country that didn't invite you and then say that 'they want us there', HELL NO!
4. There should be no borders.
5. That's anarchy. Fine by me.
6. Punishment that truely fits the crime, yes. Locking people up and denying them their human rights because you suspect them of being islamic, NO!

1. we agree

2.No I do not want to extend my genorisity to the poor if they have no reason to be poor except that they have no drive or ambition. The US gives plenty of my tax dollars to 3rd world countries, only to be shot at when we arrive with aid. Hard for me to feel sorry for them. They seem to be resourceful enough to find AK-47 and bullets, go out and find food.

3. We didn't invade anyone, we upheld the UN sanctioned resolutions that brought peace to Iraq 15 years ago. They shouldn't have broken the peace treaty. Afghanistan, they shouldn't have attacked us on 911

4. Your out of your frickin mind.

5.no, it is called liberty, remember I included that part where everyone would be held accountable for their actions. Hardly a lawless society.

6.No one has been locked up for suspician of being Islamic if so please show the link. People have been locked up for suspicion of terrorism,caught during combat.

ATG wrote:

There are no seperate realities on Earth.
There are narrowly focused perceptions.
Your lack of understanding of the concept and need for sovereignty implies ignorance, in my never to be humble opinion.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-10-14 21:42:57)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Seeing as nobody else will answer you and you seem so desperate for an answer, I'll give you one (and an answer):

1. Fine, no problem with that.
2. I assume you would extend some help to more than just children and the disabled? Say the poor for example? or do all those starving third world populations fall into the category of 'those that do not help themselves' for you?
3. Defend, yes. Invade, NO! Outstay your welcome, NO! Conduct military action in a country that didn't invite you and then say that 'they want us there', HELL NO!
4. There should be no borders.
5. That's anarchy. Fine by me.
6. Punishment that truly fits the crime, yes. Locking people up and denying them their human rights because you suspect them of being Islamic, NO!

1. we agree

Good.

lowing wrote:

2.No I do not want to extend my generosity to the poor if they have no reason to be poor except that they have no drive or ambition. The US gives plenty of my tax dollars to 3rd world countries, only to be shot at when we arrive with aid. Hard for me to feel sorry for them. They seem to be resourceful enough to find AK-47 and bullets, go out and find food.

You need to read up on the history of the WTO and the last 60 years of economic development. I also highly recommend reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

lowing wrote:

3. We didn't invade anyone, we upheld the UN sanctioned resolutions that brought peace to Iraq 15 years ago. They shouldn't have broken the peace treaty. Afghanistan, they shouldn't have attacked us on 911

Afghanistan didn't attack anybody on 11/9/2001.

lowing wrote:

4. Your out of your frickin mind.

Maybe but that's irrelevant, also see my discussion with ATG on the topic of 'borders'.

lowing wrote:

5.no, it is called liberty, remember I included that part where everyone would be held accountable for their actions. Hardly a lawless society.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy, particularly:

wikipedia wrote:

The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, anomie or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid and self-governance.

Also, are you a neo-con or a libertarian?

lowing wrote:

6.No one has been locked up for suspicion of being Islamic if so please show the link. People have been locked up for suspicion of terrorism,caught during combat.

Find out who Clive Stafford Smith is and the people he represents.

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. we agree

Good.

lowing wrote:

2.No I do not want to extend my generosity to the poor if they have no reason to be poor except that they have no drive or ambition. The US gives plenty of my tax dollars to 3rd world countries, only to be shot at when we arrive with aid. Hard for me to feel sorry for them. They seem to be resourceful enough to find AK-47 and bullets, go out and find food.

You need to read up on the history of the WTO and the last 60 years of economic development. I also highly recommend reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

lowing wrote:

3. We didn't invade anyone, we upheld the UN sanctioned resolutions that brought peace to Iraq 15 years ago. They shouldn't have broken the peace treaty. Afghanistan, they shouldn't have attacked us on 911

Afghanistan didn't attack anybody on 11/9/2001.

lowing wrote:

4. Your out of your frickin mind.

Maybe but that's irrelevant, also see my discussion with ATG on the topic of 'borders'.

lowing wrote:

5.no, it is called liberty, remember I included that part where everyone would be held accountable for their actions. Hardly a lawless society.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy, particularly:

wikipedia wrote:

The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, anomie or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid and self-governance.

Also, are you a neo-con or a libertarian?

lowing wrote:

6.No one has been locked up for suspicion of being Islamic if so please show the link. People have been locked up for suspicion of terrorism,caught during combat.

Find out who Clive Stafford Smith is and the people he represents.

2. No thanks, I think a trip to the dentist would be more fun. Blackhawk down I am sure is much more interesting. The US hands out aid and medical supplies and money all over the world. Good enough for me.

3. You're splitting hairs here, the terrorists came from Afghanistan gimme a break.

4. no need, there is nothing you can tell me to convince me we should tear down the borders of our country.

5. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy. I will use the dictionary to define words not Wikipedia

    Although I reserve the right to express opinions that do not follow any certain path, I tend to lean toward libertarian.

6. I know of this guy. So what? Johnny Cochran was just as good, he got a murderer acquitted for stabbing to death 2 people. I am sure he was proud of that as well.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-10-15 09:31:20)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

ATG wrote:

http://i10.tinypic.com/4dg6ryx.gif

Oh, I see, you can't form an intelligent reply to my points, so you resort to imaginary violence against me.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. we agree

Good.

lowing wrote:

2.No I do not want to extend my generosity to the poor if they have no reason to be poor except that they have no drive or ambition. The US gives plenty of my tax dollars to 3rd world countries, only to be shot at when we arrive with aid. Hard for me to feel sorry for them. They seem to be resourceful enough to find AK-47 and bullets, go out and find food.

You need to read up on the history of the WTO and the last 60 years of economic development. I also highly recommend reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

lowing wrote:

3. We didn't invade anyone, we upheld the UN sanctioned resolutions that brought peace to Iraq 15 years ago. They shouldn't have broken the peace treaty. Afghanistan, they shouldn't have attacked us on 911

Afghanistan didn't attack anybody on 11/9/2001.

lowing wrote:

4. Your out of your frickin mind.

Maybe but that's irrelevant, also see my discussion with ATG on the topic of 'borders'.

lowing wrote:

5.no, it is called liberty, remember I included that part where everyone would be held accountable for their actions. Hardly a lawless society.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy, particularly:

wikipedia wrote:

The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, anomie or the total absence of rules, but rather an anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, operating on principles of mutual aid and self-governance.

Also, are you a neo-con or a libertarian?


Find out who Clive Stafford Smith is and the people he represents.

2. No thanks, I think a trip to the dentist would be more fun. Blackhawk down I am sure is much more interesting. The US hands out aid and medical supplies and money all over the world. Good enough for me.

3. You're splitting hairs here, the terrorists came from Afghanistan gimme a break.

4. no need, there is nothing you can tell me to convince me we should tear down the borders of our country.

5. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy. I will use the dictionary to define words not Wikipedia

    Although I reserve the right to express opinions that do not follow any certain path, I tend to lean toward libertarian.

6. I know of this guy. So what? Johnny Cochran was just as good, he got a murderer acquitted for stabbing to death 2 people. I am sure he was proud of that as well.

Firstly, I've readjusted the numbering on your replies - can we try to keep to one numbering scheme? Makes it easier to keep track of what each point is in reply to.

2. Then you should be forced, clockwork orange style, to sit through lectures about the history of the WTO, the last 60 years of economic development and complete readings of "Guns, Germs and Steel" until you get it.

3. It's not splitting hairs at all - the terrorists that carried bombs on to UK tube trains and a bus on 7/7/2005 were british citizens - does that mean that britain attacked itself? Of course not - terrorists attacked britain, just as terrorists attacked the US, not afghanistan.

4. Because your mind is closed to all other possibilities.

5. I first used the term Anarchy in the discussion therefor it is my definition of Anarchy that matters in this discussion, not yours. Also, Libertarianism is closely linked to the Anarchy movement and "I reserve the right to express opinions that do not follow any certain path" is a very anarchistic thing to say.

6. As I said you should find out who Clive Stafford Smith is and the people he represents - people who were locked up in Guantanamo Bay, had their human rights illegally taken away from them and were subsequently released because there was no evidence of them being invloved in terrorism or of them being 'enemy combatants' - in which case why were they locked up in Guantanamo in the first place? Because they were Islamic.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Firstly, I've readjusted the numbering on your replies - can we try to keep to one numbering scheme? Makes it easier to keep track of what each point is in reply to.

2. Then you should be forced, clockwork orange style, to sit through lectures about the history of the WTO, the last 60 years of economic development and complete readings of "Guns, Germs and Steel" until you get it.

3. It's not splitting hairs at all - the terrorists that carried bombs on to UK tube trains and a bus on 7/7/2005 were british citizens - does that mean that britain attacked itself? Of course not - terrorists attacked britain, just as terrorists attacked the US, not afghanistan.

4. Because your mind is closed to all other possibilities.

5. I first used the term Anarchy in the discussion therefor it is my definition of Anarchy that matters in this discussion, not yours. Also, Libertarianism is closely linked to the Anarchy movement and "I reserve the right to express opinions that do not follow any certain path" is a very anarchistic thing to say.

6. As I said you should find out who Clive Stafford Smith is and the people he represents - people who were locked up in Guantanamo Bay, had their human rights illegally taken away from them and were subsequently released because there was no evidence of them being invloved in terrorism or of them being 'enemy combatants' - in which case why were they locked up in Guantanamo in the first place? Because they were Islamic.

2. no, I shouldn't.  In America it is simple, if you are poor in America it is because you did not work to achieve anything. Also, as far as the rest of the world goes, the US is by far the most generous country in history, and that is the bottom line.

3. Ahhhh, they were British citizens huh?

The bombers
Mohammed Sidique Khan 
Shehzad Tanweer 
Germaine Lindsay aka  Abdullah Shaheed Jamal
Hasib Hussain 

Just because they lived in England doesn't make them Englishmen, they were from muslims from the ME descent.

4. no my mind isn't closed to anything except absurdity. It is nothing short of absurd for you to try and argue that the US needs dismantle ourselves as a country.

5. unless your name is Noah Webster, you do not have the authority to pick words and make up your own definition for them. If you want to communicate with someone in the same language it is your obligation to use the words and there definition to make your point.

Choosing my opinion based on emotion and facts rather than political polarization is not anarchy, it is free thinking.

6. I told you I have heard of him. I also said OJ Simpson was aquitted of murder as well. I don't give a shit if they were being held. There obviously was a reason to hold them. You or I just do not know what it was. Extreme times call for extreme measures. It happened in WW2 as well, it is called prudence and cautiousness. This is war, innocence is always a casuality of war. Don't try and spin this and suggest America invented it.

2. Oh is it really so simple?

So it's not at all the case the poor of america are poor because they born poor or that being born into poverty meant they didn't receive the same level of education or social benefits (in the broadest sense of the word, not just monetary) as richer americans.

You may think you live in a meritocracy where it doesn't matter what you are born into, but you don't. Americas poor are poor because of history.

As for the worlds poor, they're poor because their ancestors lived in a poor environment for economic growth - they're also poor because of history.


3. Yes. They were british citizens.

Mohammed Sidique Khan - Born in St James's University Hospital, Leeds, he grew up in Beeston but moved to Lees Holm in Dewsbury, near Leeds in West Yorkshire in early 2005 - British Citizen no 1.

Shehzad Tanweer - Born in St Luke's maternity hospital, Bradford - British Citizen no 2.

Germaine Lindsay - Born in Jamaica. He moved to the UK when he was 5 months old. - British Citizen no 3.

Hasib Hussain - Born in Leeds General Infirmary and raised in Beeston, Leeds, England - British Citizen no 4.

In short, they were all British Citizens. As british as I am. Their parentage is irrelevant. All but one of them were born in british hospitals. They were raised in britain. Went to british schools. Were part of british society. They were British.


4. I think you missunderstand - I'm saying there should be no borders anywhere - no nation states - no borders - all humans living as one.


5. If you want to communicate with someone in their language it is your obligation to use their words and their definitions to make your point.

I introduced the word 'Anarchy' into this discussion, therefor it is my definition of that word that is under discussion. Not yours. Not Mr Websters (and who gave him the right to be the sole arbiter of meaning anyway?).

My use of the word 'Anarchy' is not a misuse. The wikipedia entry that I pointed you to neatly sums up my use of the word.

You are arguing semantics because you have no other argument.

Anarchy is free thinking. Free thinking is Anarchy.


6. Just having heard of someone doesn't mean you know anything about them or the work they do.

And, actually, yes, I do know why the people he represents were locked up in Guantamo, because both Clive Stafford Smith and those that he represents have been more than open in explaining those reasons.

And, I'm sorry to say, it was for no other reason than they were Islamic. They were not combatants of any kind. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We fought a war previously - it was called the second world war - where we, the allied forces, were not the ones locking people up based purely on their religion.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

2. Oh is it really so simple?

So it's not at all the case the poor of america are poor because they born poor or that being born into poverty meant they didn't receive the same level of education or social benefits (in the broadest sense of the word, not just monetary) as richer americans.

You may think you live in a meritocracy where it doesn't matter what you are born into, but you don't. Americas poor are poor because of history.

As for the worlds poor, they're poor because their ancestors lived in a poor environment for economic growth - they're also poor because of history.


3. Yes. They were british citizens.

Mohammed Sidique Khan - Born in St James's University Hospital, Leeds, he grew up in Beeston but moved to Lees Holm in Dewsbury, near Leeds in West Yorkshire in early 2005 - British Citizen no 1.

Shehzad Tanweer - Born in St Luke's maternity hospital, Bradford - British Citizen no 2.

Germaine Lindsay - Born in Jamaica. He moved to the UK when he was 5 months old. - British Citizen no 3.

Hasib Hussain - Born in Leeds General Infirmary and raised in Beeston, Leeds, England - British Citizen no 4.

In short, they were all British Citizens. As british as I am. Their parentage is irrelevant. All but one of them were born in british hospitals. They were raised in britain. Went to british schools. Were part of british society. They were British.


4. I think you missunderstand - I'm saying there should be no borders anywhere - no nation states - no borders - all humans living as one.


5. If you want to communicate with someone in their language it is your obligation to use their words and their definitions to make your point.

I introduced the word 'Anarchy' into this discussion, therefor it is my definition of that word that is under discussion. Not yours. Not Mr Websters (and who gave him the right to be the sole arbiter of meaning anyway?).

My use of the word 'Anarchy' is not a misuse. The wikipedia entry that I pointed you to neatly sums up my use of the word.

You are arguing semantics because you have no other argument.

Anarchy is free thinking. Free thinking is Anarchy.


6. Just having heard of someone doesn't mean you know anything about them or the work they do.

And, actually, yes, I do know why the people he represents were locked up in Guantamo, because both Clive Stafford Smith and those that he represents have been more than open in explaining those reasons.

And, I'm sorry to say, it was for no other reason than they were Islamic. They were not combatants of any kind. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We fought a war previously - it was called the second world war - where we, the allied forces, were not the ones locking people up based purely on their religion.

2. SO I guess EVERYONE who is born poor and makes something of themselves is nothing more than lucky, hard work, dedication, ambition have nothing to with it. There are a ton of govt. programs set up to help people who want it. Problem is, you have to some work for yourself as well to achieve.

3. They were British in the literal sense, their loyalties were however anything but. If I were born in England to American parents then I am hardly British.

4. no , I completely understand what you are saying, and I say, knock yourself out, we will keep our borders up thanks. You are nuts

5. Great call it what you want..........Only fair since my definintion of liberal is socialist/communist. But, I still have the dictionary on my side.

6.Oh so the people locked up explained why they were locked up huh?? Sounds good, can't see any holes in that.

You also might wanna check your history, during WW2 we locked up people for something worse than there anti American religion. We locked them up for their race.

2. That's not what I'm saying - of course the poor can lift themselves out of poverty, but the rich of any country start with a huge advantage over the poor - they can afford the best education and the best of everything - the poor don't have that priveledge and so have to work far far harder to make anything of their lives.

3. If you own a British passport and/or have British Citizenship you are British. Just if I were to move to America and get American Citizenship and an American passport - I would then be American.

4. As I said before, I may be nuts, but that's irrelevant.

5. Good, then we agree on the meaning of 'Anarchy' for the purpose of this discussion and I'm happy to use your definition of 'liberal'.

6. Yep. After they were released. Released by the Americans, who (possibly coincidentaly) were under pressure from the rest of the international community to release any non-combatants, when they realised that hey, these guys aren't combatants, they're just innocent british muslems who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They didn't do this straight away though, oh no, of course not, first they deprived them of their human rights. Rights that, even if they were enemy combatants, they had under the Geneva Convention.