I. do. not. want. to. live. on. this. planet. ANYMORE! page 2

64 posts

Flag Post

jhoc…yes, such common knowledge…that’s why there are SO many photos of Obama reading the koran and worshipping at a mosque, praying to Mecca…undoubtedly a Muslim…

But it’s all a conspiracy really isn’t it? Obama has being lying his whole life about his faith just to get into the White house so he can take away your guns…? It’s all been an elaborate ruse for all these decades, and your proof…I’m sorry jhco, those links are not convincing, unless you REALLY WANT and NEED to believe Obama is still or was a Muslim…then yes, those links are undeniable proof.

 
Flag Post

I don’t pay too much attention to US politics so I apologise if it is a law but, can’t a Muslim be president anyway?

I know you have to of been born in America to be eligible but I didn’t know there was a religion requirment

 
Flag Post

There isn’t, dd. It’s just that we’ve always had a Christian president, as a ‘Christian’ nation, anything else would be unacceptable to the Christian fundamentalist in the country.

Because of the way the EC works, they essentially have a rather sizable voting power, despite bible belt states having a low population density, and so a non-Christin president being appointed is unlikely. It also means any possibility of not being a true blue Christian CIC is open to vitrolic attack by the same fundamentalist part of the country.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

So what is the OP looking for here?
Another land war in the Middle East?

Does sending hundreds of thousands of troops off to die in a country that is not in any way a threat to the US constitute “balls”?

If OP didn’t like either of the candidates, who would he/she have preferred? Ron Paul? Jill Stein?
Because those two were both opposed to further military action pretty much anywhere.

So I’m confused. What course of action, exactly, is the OP looking for here?

On a side note: really, jhco? Seriously, come on. The Muslim thing again?
I think you need to stop allowing Donald Trump to tell you what you think.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

On a side note: really, jhco? Seriously, come on. The Muslim thing again?
I think you need to stop allowing Donald Trump to tell you what you think.

That’ll only happen if Trump actually tell Jhco to stop parroting him. We’ve tried just about every other approach.

The way I see it, we’ll just have to get used to this parroting of the same tired old arguments, regardless of how many times we disprove them completely. Might be worth having some canned responses saved, to just copy/pasta them in, the next time he starts up.

 
Flag Post

Nobody will fire nuclear warheads at Israel. The first being that it will most likely lead to WWIII with some big political screw up which nobody wants. The second reason is that if anything, Iran wants Israel back, and nuking it would ruin everything since it’ll be, you know, contaminated with nuclear radiation. And depending on what kind of warhead they were using and at what strength it would have, render whatever they hit somewhat to entirely inhabitable for a short to long period of time. The only reason why people are freaking out over this is because western governments/media says so, since a country with nuclear arms is harder to push around and install puppet governments into.

EDIT: Well….maybe some crazy, illogical radicals would do that, but the chances are still nil that even they would do something that crazy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by softest_voice:

On a side note: really, jhco? Seriously, come on. The Muslim thing again?
I think you need to stop allowing Donald Trump to tell you what you think.

That’ll only happen if Trump actually tell Jhco to stop parroting him. We’ve tried just about every other approach.

The way I see it, we’ll just have to get used to this parroting of the same tired old arguments, regardless of how many times we disprove them completely. Might be worth having some canned responses saved, to just copy/pasta them in, the next time he starts up.

Really? Now I am Trumps buddy? LOL! are you suggesting that because you don’t like what I am saying I should not post? If I disagree with the lefty’s I should be silent? You are a piece of work my lady.

 
Flag Post

I’m outright saying that you are wrong.

WRONG.
INCORRECT.
FACTUALLY DEFICIENT.
WILLFULLY IGNORANT.
DEVOID OF ANY SHRED OF TRUTH.
WRONG.

Something that’s been proven time and time and time and time again.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by softest_voice:

On a side note: really, jhco? Seriously, come on. The Muslim thing again?
I think you need to stop allowing Donald Trump to tell you what you think.

That’ll only happen if Trump actually tells Jhco to stop parroting him. We’ve tried just about every other approach.

The way I see it, we’ll just have to get used to this parroting of the same tired old arguments, regardless of how many times we disprove them completely. Might be worth having some canned responses saved, to just copy/pasta them in, the next time he starts up.

Really? Now I am Trumps buddy? LOL! are you suggesting that because you don’t like what I am saying I should not post? If I disagree with the lefty’s I should be silent? You are a piece of work my lady.

Pro tip here fer ya, jake-o: Just because two ppl are mentioned in the same sentence DOES NOT MEAN they are “buddies”. YOU make this mistake in how ya see my “relationship” w/ Obama. He is OUR President. He & I have SOME ideological leanings in common. I seriously doubt he would consider he & I to be “buddies”….I know I don’t.

Jake-o, so much of what YOU say is merely pissed down your pant leg….BECAUSE of the very evident HHhhuuuuuuggggeeeee fallacious exaggerations ya make just above.

vika’s mention of Trump de Rump and his relationship to the many absurdities that YOU present here on this forum is: The man’s cheese has done slipped off his cracker. Of course, Trump isn’t the ONLY such absurd “buddy” that YOU seems so comfortable “parroting”.

Where in the hell can YOU make the connection that ppl’s not liking what YOU say as meaning YOU shouldn’t post?

Where in the hell can YOU make the connection that YOUR disagreeing w/ “lefty’s” somehow equates to YOUR being “silent”?

Do YOU not see why so much of what YOU say here is so easily dismissed?

BTW…vika aint’ YOUR lady,,,
hell, we’re in serious doubt that is actually IS a “lady”.
Reports vary….esp. if we listen to some on this site.

(JK…vika, JK)

Originally posted by softest_voice:

I’m outright saying that you are wrong.

WRONG.
INCORRECT.
FACTUALLY DEFICIENT.
WILLFULLY IGNORANT.
DEVOID OF ANY SHRED OF TRUTH.
WRONG.

Something that’s been proven time and time and time and time again.

D I T T O
I quote softest_voice because his opinion is something that YOU, jake-o, should take seriously.
It is simply more evidence about what I’m trying to tell ya about how much of your opining is taken & why so.

vika is soooooo right about YOUR “same tired old arguments” and our having “canned responses” for them. I’ve before offered that YOU should have a menu that ya can use to dish up posts for us. Ya could post it in your profile so we know the connections.

Then, to save time & overusing our fingers, ya just say: Item 3, but hold the mayo. We say: Response 5. I’m serious, bro….this is pretty much all intercourse w/ YOU amounts to at the point. I’ve given up thinking the merry-go-round is an exciting ride w/ YOU….I now just listen to the music and occasionally reach for the brass ring as it goes by.

For gawd’s sake, man….tone down the hyperbole and stop making leaps in gravity-defunct zones when assessing opinions….esp. ones leveled at YOU.

Ya said NOTHING in the way of a rebbutal to softest’s challenge to your “Muslim thing”.
All I see there is YOUR typical shuck-N-jive, side-stepping of the issue by throwing up a cloud of ninja bullshit dust into the faces of your opponents….and then, slithering away.

Just simply give us RATIONAL, SANE, REASONABLE “evidence” that Pres. Obama has these idological links YOU (and Trump, et. al.) so insanely believe he has.

 
Flag Post

^This.
Oh, websites written by conspiracy theorists with black backgrounds and comic sans are not evidence. Also, I don’t really give a shit about what Obama’s religion is as long as he tolerates everyone else. He has the right things in mind for the US, and that’s what counts.
On a side note, people like the OP are why we can’t have nice things. USE SOME GODDAMN PUNCTUATION, CAPITALIZATION, AND SPELLING. Also, stop being an ignorant bigot. Thank you for your time.

 
Flag Post

well duh, if you don’t hate islam, you are one!

typical american idiot black and white thinking. you’re either with or against, and diplomacy is…uhm…that’s a noun, right? no, it’s an adjective.

but Obama does kinda overdo it. that’s just his way.

 
Flag Post

Lol, I am not saying that I hate jews, but I think we need to critize them more. I think we should because our attention only goes to those “extreme” muslims. There have been news of people terrorizing and ( take Anders Breivik for an example) that it’s not only those “muslims” that can be extreme (sorry if my english bad :L)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

well duh, if you don’t hate islam, you are one!

typical american idiot black and white thinking. you’re either with or against, and diplomacy is…uhm…that’s a noun, right? no, it’s an adjective.

but Obama does kinda overdo it. that’s just his way.

Yes because islamophobia – and every other strain of xenophobia – is an unheard of phenomenon in europe.

lol at the guy praising karma’s post but criticizing the op for not using enough punctuation capitalization and spelling.

 
Flag Post

no you have a point there. but i was refering to the black and white type of dichotomous, polaric thinking. hence the semi quote from Bush.

black and white thinking is typically American, where the word “compromise” is seen as a bad thing, and a “debate” or “discussion” is a verbal battle to declare a winner, rather than a collective reasoning process to either establish a consensus or construe a compromise.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

no you have a point there. but i was refering to the black and white type of dichotomous, polaric thinking. hence the semi quote from Bush.

black and white thinking is typically American, where the word “compromise” is seen as a bad thing, and a “debate” or “discussion” is a verbal battle to declare a winner, rather than a collective reasoning process to either establish a consensus or construe a compromise.

And do you suppose if SD had a majority european population we wouldn’t be trying to one-up each other constantly, we’d all be good little consensus builders, the sharp distinction between ideologies wouldn’t be as severe, etc?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

no you have a point there. but i was refering to the black and white type of dichotomous, polaric thinking. hence the semi quote from Bush.

black and white thinking is typically American, where the word “compromise” is seen as a bad thing, and a “debate” or “discussion” is a verbal battle to declare a winner, rather than a collective reasoning process to either establish a consensus or construe a compromise.

And do you suppose if SD had a majority european population we wouldn’t be trying to one-up each other constantly, we’d all be good little consensus builders, the sharp distinction between ideologies wouldn’t be as severe, etc?

Maybe OD is going for: Americans make a passionate “sport” of being overly “competative” in being differant.
And, maybe other societies: not so much.

I see it as: By keeping a very sharp divide via the class warfare between the middle & poor so both are too busy to see that their real battle is against the very upper class. Smart of the uppers to manipulate society this way. Yes, propaganda DOES WORK…..lol

Maybe Jan is trying to paint American behavior and that of European populations as being somewhat also black & white. LOL

 
Flag Post

Since much of European politics is built on some form of PR consensus, I think it would make a difference. Probably not a big one, but a difference nonetheless.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

no you have a point there. but i was refering to the black and white type of dichotomous, polaric thinking. hence the semi quote from Bush.

black and white thinking is typically American, where the word “compromise” is seen as a bad thing, and a “debate” or “discussion” is a verbal battle to declare a winner, rather than a collective reasoning process to either establish a consensus or construe a compromise.

And do you suppose if SD had a majority european population we wouldn’t be trying to one-up each other constantly, we’d all be good little consensus builders, the sharp distinction between ideologies wouldn’t be as severe, etc?

i don’t know about that. internet debate fora are its own thing with its own face built up of its many users. i don’t know about Europe, but Dutch people have many opinions, but usually shy from serious debates with opposition so they can keep their own opinions and let the politician and intellectuals figure it out. i figure Dutch serious debate fora would be kinda bland.

but if i see American political debates or discussion programs, and compare that to Dutch political debate and discussion programs (which are roughly similar to any other European debate or discussion i see when that happens (not often)), i see a big difference. one is always at or over the virge of a shouting contest, and focusses on trying to beat eachother by making the other look bad and trying to have more talking time; whereas in the Netherlands we let everyone make their points in civility most of the time, and counter with reasons why we think different rather than reasons why your opinion is inferior.

 
Flag Post

Maybe Jan is trying to paint American behavior and that of European populations as being somewhat also black & white. LOL

maybe you should speak direct to the point instead of cozening it with innuendo.

Since much of European politics is built on some form of PR consensus, I think it would make a difference. Probably not a big one, but a difference nonetheless.

PR doesn’t offer consensus anymore than FPTP does. Votes count for more, but fringe views still get suppressed. If anything, North American politics offers better chance of consensus via brokerage parties.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

So what is the OP looking for here?
Another land war in the Middle East?

Does sending hundreds of thousands of troops off to die in a country that is not in any way a threat to the US constitute “balls”?

If OP didn’t like either of the candidates, who would he/she have preferred? Ron Paul? Jill Stein?
Because those two were both opposed to further military action pretty much anywhere.

So I’m confused. What course of action, exactly, is the OP looking for here?

On a side note: really, jhco? Seriously, come on. The Muslim thing again?
I think you need to stop allowing Donald Trump to tell you what you think.

okay i didnt mean land troops there im talking about bombing the shit out of everything there and bring the troops not doing the bombing back therefore very few troops would die in the war on terror and eventually the terrorists will get the message that we have the bigger guns….. also i have always hated the goverment so i really didnt care who won the election ron paul mitt romney spongebob squarpants OR A FRICKEN BRAIN DEAD SQUIREL i really didnt care just not obama…. not 4 more years of his crap
edit also most people who voted for obama in 2008 voted for race….

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by teh_hobo:
i really didnt care just not obama…. not 4 more years of his crap
edit also most people who voted for obama in 2008 voted for race….

Would ya care to “back” any of that very pathetic SPECULATION of an “opinion” w/ some forms of HARD substantiation?

Esp. the dumbass “race” part?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:Esp. the dumbass “race” part?

I don’t like playing race politics, and I wouldn’t jump to the conclusions that hobo did. On the other hand, 97% of black people voted for Obama…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:Esp. the dumbass “race” part?

I don’t like playing race politics, and I wouldn’t jump to the conclusions that hobo did. On the other hand, 97% of black people voted for Obama…

OH….c’mon now.
First….I’m gonna have to call bullshit on your number.
black ppl = man, woman, AND child.
OH…now we mean: black ppl = ADULTS of voting age.
OH…now we mean: black ppl = adults of voting age who are REGISTERED VOTERS.
OH…now we mean: black ppl = those who actually voted IN the 2008 Pres. election.

NOW….let’s see if YOU can refute this : “This was particularly true for black eligible voters. Their voter turnout rate increased 4.9 percentage points, from 60.3% in 2004 to 65.3% in 2008, nearly matching the voter turnout rate of white eligible voters (66.1%).”

NOW…if ya gonna try to tell me this EXAGERATION was for scarstic effect….ya damn well do a much better job of showing it.
OR, it will look soooo much like the many other things ya slip outta da place da sun don’t shine.