The LARK Program

Anything and everything goes here... post away!

Moderators: EatMoreLead, Nad, Suck.

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Oct 2nd, 2006 at 11:00 pm

Miracl3 wrote:rofl Well if ur gonna call it a Democracy make sure u label it as what it is. Only Democracy by labeling. Still arent free as a pure democracy. l


How would you be more free in a pure democracy?
Please complete your answer useing at least three complete sentances.

Miracl3 wrote:Its people like you who fight for rights of terrorists. People that should be shot dead on the spot...you root for.l


Please define who are these people that you believe should be shot dead on the spot.
What the spot is.
How do you define who is a terrorist.
And has it actually been defined that those who are held are terrorists?
If it has been proven that those who are being held are terrorists, could we not convict them in the court of law and therefore sentence them to death ending this whole fiasco?
Might not be shot dead on the spot, but if you notice they are not being shot dead on the spot, they are being held without bail or without even being charged of a crime, any crime, hell they aren't even being charged with jay walking.

And no, nobody is rooting for them assmunch.


Miracl3 wrote: "Yeah give em rights along with a nice glass of Koolaid" I say we give them freedoms right along with a swift shock in the temples until intel is gathered from them them dispose of them.l


You do relize that if you give someone electric shock to the brain, that it will not help them be able to give information. If you want them dead, we have much better ways to do it.


Miracl3 wrote: But its tree hugging hippes who want them to have rights.


No it is not "tree hugging hippes" who want them to have rights. It is people who believe that it is not ok to be breaking our own laws. And it is not ok for use to be breaking international laws.

Ok, lets look at this for a second. China has problems with terrorists also, they don't advertise it like we do, but they do. Now how would you feel if you were kidnapped by the Chinese because they believed you were part of a terrorist orginization. Ok for us, but not for them?

Miracl3 wrote:And btw u never responded about the 6th amendment? And where the fuck do u see political and social equality? Fucking get real...has never been equality and never will be. Rofl Canada is more of a democracy then US. I wanna know why u think 6th amendment should apply to
any terrorist groups. WoW would you be willing to give them a foot massage in order to ease their day or something? You people are too soft...or at least pup n sgar. Im tired of getting fucked by terrorists. I guess maybe the UK shouldnt have legalized profiling. Thats wrong too i guess. rofl


If your getting fucked by terrorists you are hanging out with the wrong people. Don't let terrorists fuck you, its not right.
I really need to change this sig

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Oct 3rd, 2006 at 8:15 am

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:I don't need to hurl insults to make myself feel smarter, all I have to do is read your posts.

You're doing it again.

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:You show your ignorance. Where did I say it was perfect? I just said that you obviously don't know how the legal system works. Then I proved it (making YOU look like the ignorant one).

And here you see your favorite tactics of misquotes and poor interpretation used against you.

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:Nope. Not always. If it's apparent that it was self-defense and that the person was the legal owner fo the weapon, etc. etc. then they won't even press charges. If there is some doubt, though, then there will be an investigation.

And here we see you using those tactics again. I guess it really depends on which State you're in doesn't it? And weather or not you had a right to be there. And what kind of gun you used. And on and on. But go ahead, if you want to argue that our court system is 100% fair than go for it. (OMG I'm doing it too!)

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:Again, here is your genius IQ rearing it's big ol head. First off, you get it back when you show up to trial. Secondly, there are bondsmen, surety bonds, and property bonds that mean you only have to put up a small % of the bail or nothing at all.

Again, you're insulting to feel smarter. If I wanted to nit pick like you I could point out that intelligence and knowledge are to distinct traits. I never claimed to know everything about the legal system. If I did, I'd be an Attorney. I'm glad to know I don't have to pay 100% of bail but even paying a small percentage would be a PITA.

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:EML has posted quite a few times about what gives us our moral authority/moral highground - you should read some of his posts. To sacrifice that is to lose what makes us American, what makes this a Democracy, and what seperates US from THEM.

Also, it's been decided that the terrorist detainees DO fall under the Geneva Convention so, my dear little impudent strumpet, technically what we're doing is a WAR CRIME.

I read EMLs posts. I don't 100% agree with them. Only a fool would try to fight this new war with the tactics of yesteryear. (No I'm not saying you're a fool, EML. This post doesn't apply to you.) If we can give them a speedy trial than great. If not than who are we, not being privy to the information of our defendors, to question their humain detention of these prisoners? So they rott in prision for a few extra months! Who cares! If they're found guilty of crimes against America than I say we execute them. Until then they can hang out with their underwear on their heads. Don't forget that it was a prisoner who told us the location of Saddam. These guys may or may not have valuable information that could save American lives. They hate us anyway and dance in the streets anytime anything bad happens here.

I do agree with EML in that we don't want to be the monster we're slaying. Men have always walked that fine line. Sometimes they fail and sometimes they don't. We DO need to be careful we don't join the ranks of the fallen. But it is my opinion that holding these prisoners is well within that boundry.

rekloose-[PUPPY] wrote:I only drug the old stuff back up because you seem to think that my views threaten democracy while, clearly, most level-headed people would think that YOU are the threat.

I wondered why you were bringing up old posts. True to form no quote is beyond you taking it out of context. I've argued enough with you about those old posts. I'm not going to start again unless we're face to face.

On a side note, it's very difficult to keep an open mind with you hurling insults. If you can keep your next post insult free I'll 1) think better of you 2) take what you're saying seriously 3) do the same in my response.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
Miracl3
Senior Member
Posts: 596
Joined: Mar 25th, 2006 at 8:51 am

Postby Miracl3 » Oct 3rd, 2006 at 9:07 am

Jeng wrote:
Miracl3 wrote:rofl Well if ur gonna call it a Democracy make sure u label it as what it is. Only Democracy by labeling. Still arent free as a pure democracy. l


How would you be more free in a pure democracy?
Please complete your answer useing at least three complete sentances.
In a true democracy we vote on everything....not just elected officials. Its a representative Republic. In order for a pres to be impeached they have to go through thr whole nine yard like with Clinton. Instead of easily letting us have a decision they control it theirselves.
Miracl3 wrote:Its people like you who fight for rights of terrorists. People that should be shot dead on the spot...you root for.l


Please define who are these people that you believe should be shot dead on the spot. -------Terrorists and the fuckers fighting to give them rights.
What the spot is. ----- Preferably take off their nutsac and gooch with a 12 guage slug
How do you define who is a terrorist. Some1 who intends on doing harm to another country but is not involved in any official army.
And has it actually been defined that those who are held are terrorists? rgr
If it has been proven that those who are being held are terrorists, could we not convict them in the court of law and therefore sentence them to death ending this whole fiasco? no hold them and make them bitch
Might not be shot dead on the spot, but if you notice they are not being shot dead on the spot, they are being held without bail or without even being charged of a crime, any crime, hell they aren't even being charged with jay walking.

And no, nobody is rooting for them assmunch.
Sounds like you wanna get them a gift basket. Maybe im wrong?

Miracl3 wrote: "Yeah give em rights along with a nice glass of Koolaid" I say we give them freedoms right along with a swift shock in the temples until intel is gathered from them them dispose of them.l


You do relize that if you give someone electric shock to the brain, that it will not help them be able to give information. If you want them dead, we have much better ways to do it.
LoL i call bs on that one.... We've used one of the electric stimulator for dead muscles on someone before in high school to get info. It was during a Senior Trip.


Miracl3 wrote: But its tree hugging hippes who want them to have rights.


No it is not "tree hugging hippes" who want them to have rights. It is people who believe that it is not ok to be breaking our own laws. And it is not ok for use to be breaking international laws.
Sooooo im guessing its alright for Al Queada?

Ok, lets look at this for a second. China has problems with terrorists also, they don't advertise it like we do, but they do. Now how would you feel if you were kidnapped by the Chinese because they believed you were part of a terrorist orginization. Ok for us, but not for them?
I'd be fine and dandy .....fuck it its life. Doesnt matter how i get to live my life and long as i see tomorrow.
Miracl3 wrote:And btw u never responded about the 6th amendment? And where the fuck do u see political and social equality? Fucking get real...has never been equality and never will be. Rofl Canada is more of a democracy then US. I wanna know why u think 6th amendment should apply to
any terrorist groups. WoW would you be willing to give them a foot massage in order to ease their day or something? You people are too soft...or at least pup n sgar. Im tired of getting fucked by terrorists. I guess maybe the UK shouldnt have legalized profiling. Thats wrong too i guess. rofl


If your getting fucked by terrorists you are hanging out with the wrong people. Don't let terrorists fuck you, its not right.


lol You fuckers are so blind to what goes on over there. Have any of you been there? My brother studied middle eastern region for 2 outta 4 yrs of college. Went over there and studied at Yarmouk University in Jordan and studied Islamic History and Islamic Civilization. Shit like terrorism was going on then. Before the war. They kidnap their own people and mutilate them. Rape innocent little girls. So your telling me they deserve a fair trial? Well lets make sure we also buy them the fucking best lawyer. Big fuckign pansies. Go back to picking ur fucking flowers
Image
Image

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Oct 3rd, 2006 at 9:02 pm

Miracl3, many of our own politicians and some religious leaders would also do any of those things you mentioned.

What was your point again? Oh right... blindness.
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
Miracl3
Senior Member
Posts: 596
Joined: Mar 25th, 2006 at 8:51 am

Postby Miracl3 » Oct 3rd, 2006 at 10:04 pm

Benedict wrote:Oligarchy.

well wouldnt it be considered a free oligarchy?
Image

Image

User avatar
EatMoreLead
Benefactor
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sep 17th, 2002 at 11:59 pm

Postby EatMoreLead » Oct 3rd, 2006 at 10:31 pm

funny how Kahuna is absent from this debate now...

At the end of these 3 pages, has anybody changed their mind about anything? Sigh...back to processing paperwork for meh
EatMoreLead aka EML

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Oct 3rd, 2006 at 10:47 pm

Benedict wrote:So, if you read that, ask yourself this: What is the fucking point?
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Oct 3rd, 2006 at 10:52 pm

Benedict wrote:
Benedict wrote:So, if you read that, ask yourself this: What is the fucking point?


Depressed or something?

This whole "there is no point to anything" kick your on is annoying.
I really need to change this sig

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Oct 3rd, 2006 at 11:25 pm

I'm existentialist at heart. :P
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Oct 4th, 2006 at 7:53 am

EatMoreLead wrote:funny how Kahuna is absent from this debate now...

At the end of these 3 pages, has anybody changed their mind about anything? Sigh...back to processing paperwork for meh


So true. I've been known to change my mind every once in a while, but I don't see myself giving on this on, not unless a strong arguement is presented.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
Kahuna Mas
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Feb 11th, 2004 at 9:57 am

Postby Kahuna Mas » Oct 4th, 2006 at 9:39 am

EatMoreLead wrote:funny how Kahuna is absent from this debate now...

At the end of these 3 pages, has anybody changed their mind about anything? Sigh...back to processing paperwork for meh


I assure you my absence from this thread has not limited the amount of crap being spewed by either side. After watching this thread along with the other thread, I have decided that there has yet to be a political debate that has been about the actual issue itself. As far as I can see, every politcal thread starts and ends this way:

- Person A brings up a topic albeit religious or political
- Persons B disagrees and list their reasons for disagreement, however before closing arguement they pitch in some type of jab or insult at their counterpart
- Response from person A refutes some portion of Person Bs statement but focuses more on the jab / insult and begins spending time on refuting the PERSON and not the issue.
- Person B elevates this again and both side eventualy become so poloraized the thread becomes an inevitable pissing match where people are challenging more the language someone uses rather than addressing the point they are trying to make.

My point is this. You question whether anyone changes their minds, but you are also the first to include jabs and insults calling people racist, idiotic, etc. How ironic that we say we are sick of politicians, but we so quickly begin using the same negative tactics as said politicians in the effort to be proven better or smarter than your opponent rather than actually trying to solve the problem at hand.

My suggestion is that if you want to have a forum where people are allowed to think freely, you must allow them the opportunity to have an opinion without the personal attacks. There is no incentive for anyone to change their mind simple because this thread is more about WHO is right, rather than WHAT is right.

Funny thing is, I would imagine that several people have had moments where they questioned their own opinion, but due to the format created here, are not willing to admit since their opponents would most likely take the opportunity to insult them again for the purpose of serving their own ego.

However, since you have asked the question, I have questioned some of the statements I made previsouly and am not exactly sure how I feel about some of the situations discussed.

My question to you is this... Have you ever changed YOUR mind about anything in this or any other thread?

User avatar
Best_predator
Banished to Siberia
Posts: 2786
Joined: Dec 21st, 2004 at 5:40 pm

Postby Best_predator » Oct 4th, 2006 at 10:16 am

Kahuna Mas wrote:
- Person A brings up a topic albeit religious or political
- Persons B disagrees and list their reasons for disagreement, however before closing arguement they pitch in some type of jab or insult at their counterpart
- Response from person A refutes some portion of Person Bs statement but focuses more on the jab / insult and begins spending time on refuting the PERSON and not the issue.
- Person B elevates this again and both side eventualy become so poloraized the thread becomes an inevitable pissing match where people are challenging more the language someone uses rather than addressing the point they are tryiing to make.


Heh, that about sums it up. But theres also debates where people dont jab at opponents for sometime. But when they read the other's posts all they read is "blah blah blah" and never actually try and see the other's point. So, people are just talking to themselves. In the end it comes down to jabbin and insulting because thats the only thing your opponents won't see as "blahblah" like you said :).

"Blah blah you moron blah blah blah blah fuckin idiot blah blah learn to speak english(:P) blah blah your IQ is low blah blah blah."
:)
Sneaky bastard...
"Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do." ~ Goethe

User avatar
Burzum
Benefactor
Posts: 4291
Joined: Oct 21st, 2004 at 1:05 pm

Postby Burzum » Oct 4th, 2006 at 11:27 am

Kahuna Mas wrote:My question to you is this... Have you ever changed YOUR mind about anything in this or any other thread?

Yes, I was once in the position of having to admit being wrong about something after fighting for it for several days.

I agree though. With all the personal attacks and dancing around the real issue it's very difficult to foster an environment where someone will keep an open mind.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

User avatar
EatMoreLead
Benefactor
Posts: 4406
Joined: Sep 17th, 2002 at 11:59 pm

Postby EatMoreLead » Oct 4th, 2006 at 10:32 pm

well I did change my "you are an idiot" to you are "acting" like an idiot - learned something!
EatMoreLead aka EML

User avatar
Kahuna Mas
Senior Member
Posts: 604
Joined: Feb 11th, 2004 at 9:57 am

Postby Kahuna Mas » Oct 5th, 2006 at 10:11 am

EatMoreLead wrote:well I did change my "you are an idiot" to you are "acting" like an idiot - learned something!


lol touche`

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Oct 5th, 2006 at 1:20 pm

Only a fool would try to fight this new war with the tactics of yesteryear.


I think that is perhaps one point that needs addressing. It wasn't that our tactics were wrong that allowed 9/11 to happen, it was more so mis-intelligence and incompetence.

Now with us changing our tactics that doesn't mean that mis-intelligence and incompetence will not happen, there have been numerous reports of both happening since. So with us changing our tactics to ones where we respect the lives of others less, that means that mis-intelligence and incompetence will hurt people even more, along with creating more enemies.


We can fight this new war with the tactics of yesteryear.
I really need to change this sig

User avatar
Deleted User
*poof*
Posts: 7507
Joined: Jul 13th, 2006 at 3:41 am

Postby Deleted User » Oct 5th, 2006 at 9:56 pm

No, we can't. The tactics of old will absolutely not work when your enemy is surrounded by your allies. We can't just go around bombing buildings because our intelligence reports say that a house is full of insurgents when that house also contains innocent civilians. And these things are happening because we are trying to fight this war traditionally.
During the Revolutionary War, the British tried to fight traditionally, and we were the terrorists. Who won?
I've been deleted!!

User avatar
sgarissta
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Jun 4th, 2005 at 7:02 pm

Postby sgarissta » Oct 6th, 2006 at 9:56 am

Benedict wrote:During the Revolutionary War, the British tried to fight traditionally, and we were the terrorists. Who won?


While I agree, our victory in the Revolutionary War had as much to do with an over extended British military as it did our guerrilla tactics.

User avatar
rekloose-[PUPPY]
Elite Member
Posts: 4182
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002 at 11:38 pm

Postby rekloose-[PUPPY] » Oct 6th, 2006 at 10:40 am

French support was also critical to us winning the revolutionary war. They provided troops but, way more importantly, they provided their navy which defeated the British Navy, blockaded ports, and provided bombardment from the sea.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstate ... war-77.htm

User avatar
Jeng
Elite Member
Posts: 1360
Joined: Nov 16th, 2005 at 6:16 pm

Postby Jeng » Oct 6th, 2006 at 1:17 pm

Benedict wrote:No, we can't. The tactics of old will absolutely not work when your enemy is surrounded by your allies. We can't just go around bombing buildings because our intelligence reports say that a house is full of insurgents when that house also contains innocent civilians. And these things are happening because we are trying to fight this war traditionally.
During the Revolutionary War, the British tried to fight traditionally, and we were the terrorists. Who won?


Interesting way to frame the debate, to bomb or not to bomb, while we have used many other tactics, many of them work for the circumstances you state above. Though yes, that is happening, not due to our lack of tactics, but due to a lack of applying the appropriate tactics.
I really need to change this sig


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests