Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 16

 

2006-10-18 15:52:50
jonsimon
Member
+224|6696

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Okay, so any person who dresses "ghetto" style clothing you consider gang bangers?  Ever considered that the type of clothing is largely more popular in the african american demographic than in others?  That is not racism, it's social awareness......
It's also bad taste....  Bill Cosby would agree with me, at least.
Ya mean, people that wear pants and shirts 10 sizes too big and half way around their asses with their fuckin' underwear sticking out, are finding it hard to find work??...............Now how the hell can that be??!!!!!!!. Obviously "whitey" is a racist. I mean really, it is the "style", after all
None of that made sense lowing. Just because dressing casually for some people is wearing large clothes doesn't mean they never wear a suit. Hell, you wouldn't get past an interview in a T-shirt and jeans either. Criticizing fashion is silly and futile.

And what's with your racism fetish?
2006-10-18 16:01:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6606|North Carolina

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Okay, so any person who dresses "ghetto" style clothing you consider gang bangers?  Ever considered that the type of clothing is largely more popular in the african american demographic than in others?  That is not racism, it's social awareness......
It's also bad taste....  Bill Cosby would agree with me, at least.
Please, lets not debate clothing styles, that's an argument that goes nowhere, and it gets there slowly.
Well, I won't take it too far, but just one thing...  If you intentionally dress in a way in which people assume you have criminal habits (like a thug, for example), then why should these people be surprised if they're discriminated against?

I'm all for being an individual and having some style to my wardrobe, but I'm not going to dress in a way that suggests I'm packing heat or drugs, unless that's what I want people to think.  People need to closer examine what lifestyles they glamorize in how they dress.
2006-10-18 16:03:48
jonsimon
Member
+224|6696

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


It's also bad taste....  Bill Cosby would agree with me, at least.
Please, lets not debate clothing styles, that's an argument that goes nowhere, and it gets there slowly.
Well, I won't take it too far, but just one thing...  If you intentionally dress in a way in which people assume you have criminal habits (like a thug, for example), then why should these people be surprised if they're discriminated against?
The same reason I would be surprised if someone stereotyped me when I wear my pinstripe suit. Everyone has different perspectives.

Let's leave it at that.
2006-10-18 16:08:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


It's also bad taste....  Bill Cosby would agree with me, at least.
Ya mean, people that wear pants and shirts 10 sizes too big and half way around their asses with their fuckin' underwear sticking out, are finding it hard to find work??...............Now how the hell can that be??!!!!!!!. Obviously "whitey" is a racist. I mean really, it is the "style", after all
None of that made sense lowing. Just because dressing casually for some people is wearing large clothes doesn't mean they never wear a suit. Hell, you wouldn't get past an interview in a T-shirt and jeans either. Criticizing fashion is silly and futile.

And what's with your racism fetish?
Ya ok, wearing your pants around your ass while having to hold them up so you can fuckin' walk!! Is the same thing as wearing jeans and a t-shirt.. sounds good, you win.

Read back Jonsimon, I didn't start the topic of racism in this thread. Your buddy Spearhead did
2006-10-18 18:14:24
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6891|Tampa Bay Florida

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:


Ya mean, people that wear pants and shirts 10 sizes too big and half way around their asses with their fuckin' underwear sticking out, are finding it hard to find work??...............Now how the hell can that be??!!!!!!!. Obviously "whitey" is a racist. I mean really, it is the "style", after all
None of that made sense lowing. Just because dressing casually for some people is wearing large clothes doesn't mean they never wear a suit. Hell, you wouldn't get past an interview in a T-shirt and jeans either. Criticizing fashion is silly and futile.

And what's with your racism fetish?
Ya ok, wearing your pants around your ass while having to hold them up so you can fuckin' walk!! Is the same thing as wearing jeans and a t-shirt.. sounds good, you win.

Read back Jonsimon, I didn't start the topic of racism in this thread. Your buddy Spearhead did
whatever, lowing, you're the one who implied Immortal Technique is a gang banger.
2006-10-18 18:20:32
jonsimon
Member
+224|6696

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:


Ya mean, people that wear pants and shirts 10 sizes too big and half way around their asses with their fuckin' underwear sticking out, are finding it hard to find work??...............Now how the hell can that be??!!!!!!!. Obviously "whitey" is a racist. I mean really, it is the "style", after all
None of that made sense lowing. Just because dressing casually for some people is wearing large clothes doesn't mean they never wear a suit. Hell, you wouldn't get past an interview in a T-shirt and jeans either. Criticizing fashion is silly and futile.

And what's with your racism fetish?
Ya ok, wearing your pants around your ass while having to hold them up so you can fuckin' walk!! Is the same thing as wearing jeans and a t-shirt.. sounds good, you win.

Read back Jonsimon, I didn't start the topic of racism in this thread. Your buddy Spearhead did
Well, objectively, yes, it is. There is no objective difference between the two styles with exception to their popularity and, in some cases, their deceny.

Then let him look like an idiot. It's not your job to scream racist incessantly anytime someone else stereotypes.
2006-10-18 18:44:13
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:


None of that made sense lowing. Just because dressing casually for some people is wearing large clothes doesn't mean they never wear a suit. Hell, you wouldn't get past an interview in a T-shirt and jeans either. Criticizing fashion is silly and futile.

And what's with your racism fetish?
Ya ok, wearing your pants around your ass while having to hold them up so you can fuckin' walk!! Is the same thing as wearing jeans and a t-shirt.. sounds good, you win.

Read back Jonsimon, I didn't start the topic of racism in this thread. Your buddy Spearhead did
whatever, lowing, you're the one who implied Immortal Technique is a gang banger.
LMAO!!!!...........Yeah I did, and you were the one who made it a race issue!!!

I asked you, and you still have not answered, why calling someone a gang banger, makes me a racist?

He is a criminal after all, haveing several run ins with the law and with drug dealers, he is also a vandal, he has a violent temper and has a history of assult....

I think you stepped on your own dick with your "racist" accusations and you really should either explain it or retract it.
2006-10-18 18:45:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:


None of that made sense lowing. Just because dressing casually for some people is wearing large clothes doesn't mean they never wear a suit. Hell, you wouldn't get past an interview in a T-shirt and jeans either. Criticizing fashion is silly and futile.

And what's with your racism fetish?
Ya ok, wearing your pants around your ass while having to hold them up so you can fuckin' walk!! Is the same thing as wearing jeans and a t-shirt.. sounds good, you win.

Read back Jonsimon, I didn't start the topic of racism in this thread. Your buddy Spearhead did
Well, objectively, yes, it is. There is no objective difference between the two styles with exception to their popularity and, in some cases, their deceny.

Then let him look like an idiot. It's not your job to scream racist incessantly anytime someone else stereotypes.
Fine I dare you to go apply for a job with your pants around your ass, you will be bitchin' about "the man keepin' ya down" in no time.
2006-10-18 19:03:50
kilgoretrout
Member
+53|6671|Little Rock, AR

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:


Ya ok, wearing your pants around your ass while having to hold them up so you can fuckin' walk!! Is the same thing as wearing jeans and a t-shirt.. sounds good, you win.

Read back Jonsimon, I didn't start the topic of racism in this thread. Your buddy Spearhead did
Well, objectively, yes, it is. There is no objective difference between the two styles with exception to their popularity and, in some cases, their deceny.

Then let him look like an idiot. It's not your job to scream racist incessantly anytime someone else stereotypes.
Fine I dare you to go apply for a job with your pants around your ass, you will be bitchin' about "the man keepin' ya down" in no time.
He said that the two styles are both casual and neither would be appropriate for a job interview...  "Hell, you wouldn't get past an interview in a T-shirt and jeans either."
2006-10-18 19:10:48
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

kilgoretrout wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Well, objectively, yes, it is. There is no objective difference between the two styles with exception to their popularity and, in some cases, their deceny.

Then let him look like an idiot. It's not your job to scream racist incessantly anytime someone else stereotypes.
Fine I dare you to go apply for a job with your pants around your ass, you will be bitchin' about "the man keepin' ya down" in no time.
He said that the two styles are both casual and neither would be appropriate for a job interview...  "Hell, you wouldn't get past an interview in a T-shirt and jeans either."
There is nothing "casual" about dressing like a fuckin' hoodlum. There is an image you are trying to reflect by dressing like that, and there is nothing positve about that image. YOu want to dress like a criminal portrait criminal behavior and attitude, don't be surprised when you get treated like one, or judged as one.

One could wear a ski mask in a bank as well, nothing wrong with a ski mask, you could be a trend setter, but you will be judged, and treated accordingly by that judgment.

Last edited by lowing (2006-10-19 02:42:09)

2006-10-19 00:57:55
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6910|Wilmington, DE, US
Everyone's supposed to wear polo shirts, khakis, and loafers with tassles.
2006-10-19 01:05:42
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6691|Menlo Park, CA

lowing wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am convinced that the path to a new, better and possible world is not capitalism, the path is socialism.
Hugo Chavez

I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell.
Hugo Chavez




http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?conten … s/tony1001
I think he's right and wrong.  Capitalism, aka "free enterprise" and the ability to make your own business and wealth is fine.  But he's dead on that capitalism is leading us straight to hell.  Ever heard of greed?  Ever heard of the  United States of America?  Ever wonder who runs this country?
America is based on the premise that you are FREE to SUCCEED or FAIL in life as you see fit. YOu can be anything you want, live where ever you want, make as much as you want or as little. It is all up to you.

It is a system I support.

Why d oyou liberals think that govt. is set up to take care of you. YOu need to learn to take of yourselves and stop looking toward the govt. for all your needs.
Absolutely! ! HERE HERE!! Why is that concept so hard for liberals to grasp?? Oh yea, they have diarea for brains. . . .
2006-10-19 07:09:14
kr@cker
Bringin' Sexy Back!
+581|6750|Southeastern USA
hooray for socialism!!! don't work hard!!! don't improve your product/service/performance!!! get paid the same as those that do!!!! yippeee!!!1
2006-10-19 16:03:40
duk0r
Administrator
+306|6869|Austin, TX

lowing wrote:

duk0r wrote:

lowing wrote:

Go ahead, and I will debate it with you. I am surprised, it took 3 pages before you liberals started with the name calling. Might be a record.
Oh please lowing, will you be a bit more of a hypocrite?

lowing wrote:

Now, you and your hippie "admin" geek squad buddies can tag me all you want, the fact is, when you grow up and earn everything you work for, you will want to protect it as well. You will not want to give it to those that chose not to work for it themselves. It won't be cool to be a hippie liberal dumb fuck. I guess you will just have wait and see.
You can sum that quote up with stereotyping and name calling. You do one thing and then jump over some one for doing the same thing you have done.
No, you don't debate with anyone on anything. I have yet to see you make a compromise in a debate. I have tried to debate with you, and I am sure many others have. You just put your fingers in your ears and yell louder.
First look closely at the quote you took as your shining example of me throwing out name calling. THe part where it says, "You and your hippie "admin" geek squad buddies can tag me all you want". My response was defensive to you calling me shit in YOUR previous post.

DO me a favor, pull ALL my posts where I have resorted to name calling, then pull the posts where I have been attacked. Then come back and let me know how often I do it.
Umm, this was after the fact you called me a "Hippie". After the fact you moved away from the debate at hand and resorted to name calling and stereotyping, I decided to play your childish games and say:

duk0r wrote:

"Don't question me on it"? I remember saying debate me if you want to on his 9/11 subjects, or any 9/11 events of that matter. Now you are just taking things out of context, taking cheap shots to cover up your ignorance.
I guess the admin note an your bf2s forum account says it all: "Note: profoundly stupid"
The point I was trying to make is in THIS post is the level of your hypocrisy. You resort to name calling and stereotyping all the time but then jump some one else over it.
On the other hand, at times I will call people names out of anger, I admit it. But I will NOT turn around and jump all over some one for it just to create a distraction from the topic at hand, which you commonly do.

Like I said, trying to debate you is like trying to have a debate with 2 year old. It will sit there and scream without listening to a word you say.

I like your new admin note though, quite funny, and I didn’t set it ha!
https://bf3s.com/sigs/a3a6d1102d14bf2f7e266fba7f728dc2cc38b316.png
2006-10-19 18:02:53
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

duk0r wrote:

lowing wrote:

duk0r wrote:

Oh please lowing, will you be a bit more of a hypocrite?

You can sum that quote up with stereotyping and name calling. You do one thing and then jump over some one for doing the same thing you have done.
No, you don't debate with anyone on anything. I have yet to see you make a compromise in a debate. I have tried to debate with you, and I am sure many others have. You just put your fingers in your ears and yell louder.
First look closely at the quote you took as your shining example of me throwing out name calling. THe part where it says, "You and your hippie "admin" geek squad buddies can tag me all you want". My response was defensive to you calling me shit in YOUR previous post.

DO me a favor, pull ALL my posts where I have resorted to name calling, then pull the posts where I have been attacked. Then come back and let me know how often I do it.
Umm, this was after the fact you called me a "Hippie". After the fact you moved away from the debate at hand and resorted to name calling and stereotyping, I decided to play your childish games and say:

duk0r wrote:

"Don't question me on it"? I remember saying debate me if you want to on his 9/11 subjects, or any 9/11 events of that matter. Now you are just taking things out of context, taking cheap shots to cover up your ignorance.
I guess the admin note an your bf2s forum account says it all: "Note: profoundly stupid"
The point I was trying to make is in THIS post is the level of your hypocrisy. You resort to name calling and stereotyping all the time but then jump some one else over it.
On the other hand, at times I will call people names out of anger, I admit it. But I will NOT turn around and jump all over some one for it just to create a distraction from the topic at hand, which you commonly do.

Like I said, trying to debate you is like trying to have a debate with 2 year old. It will sit there and scream without listening to a word you say.

I like your new admin note though, quite funny, and I didn’t set it ha!
Show me where I called YOU a "hippie" BEFORE your attack.

LOL, gee I got a new tag??!!........and I guess you are not gunna tell me what it is.......oh no, I hope I am able to sleep tonight. I do think it is cute that you still pass secret notes to each other though.


You like my "new admin tag and you didn't set , ha!!"......????........my god.....lol

By the way, I will go with my original response toward my "new tag" that I used with the old one. lol




"Stop with the dissection and taking everything I say out of context. Bottom line. You wanna believe Alex Jones, because well, you are a young hippie and it is cool." <--------I wrote............here is the extent of my "attacking" you. good grief!!, I hope your psychiatrist upped your meds, so you could deal with that and and are on the road to recovery.    NOW, post all your attacks toward ME!! Better go back and re-read that thread I challenge to show me more of personal insults like the one I recieved from you

Last edited by lowing (2006-10-19 18:08:53)

2006-10-19 18:08:36
jonsimon
Member
+224|6696

fadedsteve wrote:

lowing wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:


I think he's right and wrong.  Capitalism, aka "free enterprise" and the ability to make your own business and wealth is fine.  But he's dead on that capitalism is leading us straight to hell.  Ever heard of greed?  Ever heard of the  United States of America?  Ever wonder who runs this country?
America is based on the premise that you are FREE to SUCCEED or FAIL in life as you see fit. YOu can be anything you want, live where ever you want, make as much as you want or as little. It is all up to you.

It is a system I support.

Why d oyou liberals think that govt. is set up to take care of you. YOu need to learn to take of yourselves and stop looking toward the govt. for all your needs.
Absolutely! ! HERE HERE!! Why is that concept so hard for liberals to grasp?? Oh yea, they have diarea for brains. . . .
Actually, the government IS here to support citizens. That's the founding concept of DEMOCRACY and just about every philosophical role of good government EVER. GG
2006-10-19 18:10:10
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

jonsimon wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

lowing wrote:


America is based on the premise that you are FREE to SUCCEED or FAIL in life as you see fit. YOu can be anything you want, live where ever you want, make as much as you want or as little. It is all up to you.

It is a system I support.

Why d oyou liberals think that govt. is set up to take care of you. YOu need to learn to take of yourselves and stop looking toward the govt. for all your needs.
Absolutely! ! HERE HERE!! Why is that concept so hard for liberals to grasp?? Oh yea, they have diarea for brains. . . .
Actually, the government IS here to support citizens. That's the founding concept of DEMOCRACY and just about every philosophical role of good government EVER. GG
Where in the world is THAT written??
2006-10-19 18:11:21
Ikarti
Banned - for ever.
+231|6910|Wilmington, DE, US

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Absolutely! ! HERE HERE!! Why is that concept so hard for liberals to grasp?? Oh yea, they have diarea for brains. . . .
Actually, the government IS here to support citizens. That's the founding concept of DEMOCRACY and just about every philosophical role of good government EVER. GG
Where in the world is THAT written??
By the people, for the people, perchance?
2006-10-19 18:11:42
jonsimon
Member
+224|6696

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:


Absolutely! ! HERE HERE!! Why is that concept so hard for liberals to grasp?? Oh yea, they have diarea for brains. . . .
Actually, the government IS here to support citizens. That's the founding concept of DEMOCRACY and just about every philosophical role of good government EVER. GG
Where in the world is THAT written??
Try reading some of our founding father's thoughts. Or maybe Thomas Payne.
2006-10-19 18:17:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:


Actually, the government IS here to support citizens. That's the founding concept of DEMOCRACY and just about every philosophical role of good government EVER. GG
Where in the world is THAT written??
Try reading some of our founding father's thoughts. Or maybe Thomas Payne.
You seem to be in the know, so why don't ya just tell me where it is written that the govt. is supposed to support the citizens instead of the govt. providing the ability for the people to have the right to pursue life liberity and happeness for themselves
2006-10-19 18:20:56
jonsimon
Member
+224|6696

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:


Where in the world is THAT written??
Try reading some of our founding father's thoughts. Or maybe Thomas Payne.
You seem to be in the know, so why don't ya just tell me where it is written that the govt. is supposed to support the citizens instead of the govt. providing the ability for the people to have the right to pursue life liberity and happeness for themselves
Thomas Payne and our founding fathers based their democratic government on the ideals that the government serves the people, a slight contrast from the european monarchies of the time. If supporting your people when in need is not serving them, I don't know what is.

As for citations, sorry, but my AP US covered the revolution back in the beginning of last year, and I'm not going to dredge anything up for no reason.
2006-10-19 18:29:42
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Try reading some of our founding father's thoughts. Or maybe Thomas Payne.
You seem to be in the know, so why don't ya just tell me where it is written that the govt. is supposed to support the citizens instead of the govt. providing the ability for the people to have the right to pursue life liberity and happeness for themselves
Thomas Payne and our founding fathers based their democratic government on the ideals that the government serves the people, a slight contrast from the european monarchies of the time. If supporting your people when in need is not serving them, I don't know what is.

As for citations, sorry, but my AP US covered the revolution back in the beginning of last year, and I'm not going to dredge anything up for no reason.
Well, I can cite the Bill of Rights and there is nothing in the Preamble that suggests that you don't have to earn your way through life and the govt. will take care of you.

The right to Pursue Life Librerty and Hapiness means YOU have the right to PURSUE it.

Last edited by lowing (2006-10-19 18:36:34)

2006-10-19 18:43:05
jonsimon
Member
+224|6696

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:


You seem to be in the know, so why don't ya just tell me where it is written that the govt. is supposed to support the citizens instead of the govt. providing the ability for the people to have the right to pursue life liberity and happeness for themselves
Thomas Payne and our founding fathers based their democratic government on the ideals that the government serves the people, a slight contrast from the european monarchies of the time. If supporting your people when in need is not serving them, I don't know what is.

As for citations, sorry, but my AP US covered the revolution back in the beginning of last year, and I'm not going to dredge anything up for no reason.
Well, I can cite the Bill of Rights and there is nothing in the Preamble that suggests that you don't have to earn your way through life and the govt. will take care of you.

The right to Pursue Life Librerty and Hapiness means YOU have the right to PURSUE it.
Ikarti said it best, by the people FOR the people.
2006-10-19 18:51:04
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:


Thomas Payne and our founding fathers based their democratic government on the ideals that the government serves the people, a slight contrast from the european monarchies of the time. If supporting your people when in need is not serving them, I don't know what is.

As for citations, sorry, but my AP US covered the revolution back in the beginning of last year, and I'm not going to dredge anything up for no reason.
Well, I can cite the Bill of Rights and there is nothing in the Preamble that suggests that you don't have to earn your way through life and the govt. will take care of you.

The right to Pursue Life Librerty and Hapiness means YOU have the right to PURSUE it.
Ikarti said it best, by the people FOR the people.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "


Please tell me how you interpret this from the Gettysburg Address as meaning a free ride while the rest of us pay??

You have a speach, I have the Constitution...I win
2006-10-19 19:04:02
jonsimon
Member
+224|6696

lowing wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well, I can cite the Bill of Rights and there is nothing in the Preamble that suggests that you don't have to earn your way through life and the govt. will take care of you.

The right to Pursue Life Librerty and Hapiness means YOU have the right to PURSUE it.
Ikarti said it best, by the people FOR the people.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. "


Please tell me how you interpret this from the Gettysburg Address as meaning a free ride while the rest of us pay??

You have a speach, I have the Constitution...I win
Who said free ride? Barely surviving on government provided food while others make incredible profits off of government subsidies is not a free ride. There is no on off switch for success. We can preserve the right of everyone to succeed while preserving the right of everyone to feed themselves. Living on minimum wage is not the same as rolling on twenties.

You may have an outdated document, but I have the minds of all our founding fathers and the greats Thomas Payne and Adam Smith. That's the royal flush of revolutionaries.

If barely living on government provided food is a free ride, then yes, some should have a free ride while others work for success.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-10-19 19:08:34)

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 16

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard