Posted 24 April 2003 - 02:16 PM
perpetrated by the poorly educated, is sucked up readily
by those who are similarly poorly educated: a self-completing
cycle of the perpetration of ignorance and chest-beating
nonsense--serving no purpose and obscuring the relevant
facts about the shameful behaviour of the American
Listen, just because we don't agree doesn't make me poorly educated you arrogant twit. What is mindless is when someone is so staunch in their beliefs that no matter what, they stick to that belief. And this you do very well, Indrid is just Indrid, he hates the US so much no matter what everything they do is wrong. You help him by singing his tune and all the while he thinks your just a no good Americanskij.
So how about using facts from now on, instead of the childish 2nd grade tactics you've employed thus far, sound good?
Posted 24 April 2003 - 06:25 PM
He is to busy slamming others for being (in his view) semi-illiterate or totally illiterate (and complaining about how many people are wasting his time).
Your effort here to have a word fest with Indrid would be better served on another thread as this thread deals with Moderation, not your agenda.
Posted 24 April 2003 - 06:38 PM
Are you the same as this much published Author / Scholar?
------------------------> A link to Dr. Ide's books: http://www.amazon.co...1174595-8524118
Posted 25 April 2003 - 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Viking396
"Get your head out of the patriotic cloud and come down to reality. No gunner "mistakenly" fires on a vehicle that is emblazened with the UK flag and doesn't see it."
Wow, you were there and saw everything, I didn't know. Oh wait, you WEREN'T there.... I see but you know better than the guy who made a statement about what HE SAW BECAUSE HE WAS THERE.
"This was cold blooded murder and the soilder should be tried for murder."
Stay out of the jury pool, ok? People who pre-judge without the facts don't belong on one. You clearly only read or saw what fit for you so you could use it.
"Second, the shooting of women and children in an open car at the boarder was not a mistake. This was a terrorist act by insensitive mercaneries disguised as soldiers of the USA--troopers in fact with no sense and no purpose but to cause carnage for W Bush."
So THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED, thank you, you were there when this happened as well? No? Oh ok, but you know what really happened or saw one report that again fit your needs and that was enough for you.
"Bush would not have been elected by the Electoral College--a throwback to the 18th century when the franchise was limited to white males of property over the age of 25--maybe you better read your own USA history--and not by the popular vote. The only reasons that this came about are 2: (1) because the vile and totally corrupt Supreme Court refused a recount as they knew that it would kick out their anointed, and (2) because Gore--who I never liked and still don't--didn't want the nation further divided for an extended period of time "
Whatever, is it the law or isn't it? Exactly. Yeah, Gore's intentions were so very noble, puhleaze....
"(oh, I forgot, you don't read the newspapers or the Senate Journal of the USA)."
I don't? Where have I stated this? I see now, you really know everything and everybody... You assume much and know very little Dokter. If you read any of the above you wouldn't be so uninformed as you clearly are. Or, you read them just so you have some more things to disagree with. Which wouldn't surprise me one bit.
"Your education is sadly lacking. All the jingoism you spew means nothing in light of reality."
What reality, your reality? I have spoken the truth as I see it, I'm allowed an opinion, I don't watch a news program that caters to my whims and then spout off about it irrationally here, like you have. I saw the report on the shooting of that vehicle with women and children on it, then I did some research, unlike you.
I'm not into jingoism, but you feel better calling me that don't you. I believe in truth, just not your truth.
Why is it people like you have to define the person you disagree with, with a term? What, is this the big word you saw on the web today? People who don't agree with you must be defined by a word, I have a word for you... laemingi
My education is continuing, unlike yours which stopped sometime a few decades ago....
Your knowledge of American jurisprudence is lacking. A jury is selected to listen to the "facts" as detailed by BOTH sides in an argument/trial. It will not be impaneled and seated if any of its members has any preknowledge of the case. I learned this in my first year of law school. And it was my thesis for the juris doctor degree. But then American education isn't very good, so obviously I was taught incorrectly--by your standards.
Of course the gunner would say it was a mistake. That is self-preservation. You are right, I was not there--but the British were, and those who survived this murderous assault all stated under oath that it was a deliberate attack by a "cowboy soldier". That is public in the various English papers and online--such as at theguardian.uk.co, indepenedent.uk.co, etc. YOU need to get your facts straight.
You are right, I do not know what you read--but there is no evidence for it in your communication. I will delightedly provide sources for my arguments. Will you do all of the courtesy of providing your sources.
The Electoral College is not democratic, yet you argue for democracy. It can't be both ways.
Posted 25 April 2003 - 01:32 PM
How would you know, it's not like you read what I said. Re-read it.
"A jury is selected to listen to the "facts" as detailed by BOTH sides in an argument/trial. It will not be impaneled and seated if any of its members has any preknowledge of the case."
This wasn't my point and I understand yours, my point, if you re-read it, is you have a predefined way of thinking and think you know everything. You do not SEEM to be open to BOTH SIDES of ANYTHING. SO PLEASE STAY OUT OF THE JURY POOL. I think this is to the point, don't you?
Shall we discuss jurisprudence? Perhaps you just don't think that since I haven't been "published" I have no clue, you would be mistaken thinking this.
" I learned this in my first year of law school."
I learned it my junior year in High School, so? We going to have a my dick is bigger contest? Do we need to go there, isn't that a little childish?
" And it was my thesis for the juris doctor degree. But then American education isn't very good, so obviously I was taught incorrectly--by your standards."
I'm NOT saying you were taught incorrectly, that would be a knock to good teachers. I think you just don't pay attention unless it slants to your way of thinking, and I think YOU think you know everything. I stopped thinking this way when I hit 21 and realized my dad was right, teenagers don't know everything. Someday you will learn this as well.
ALSO, I'm not saying I'm smarter than you if you indeed are the doctor you claim to be. But that doesn't mean I'm an idiot either. We can agree to disagree.
"Of course the gunner would say it was a mistake. That is self-preservation."
Listen, how about we drop this, we disagree on this point, ok? I'm open enough to understand the possibility exists that he did as you said, but I'm not taking YOUR word for it. I'll check into it more and if it turns out he is guilty I'll be right there with you.
" You are right, I was not there--but the British were, and those who survived this murderous assault all stated under oath that it was a deliberate attack by a "cowboy soldier". That is public in the various English papers and online--such as at theguardian.uk.co, indepenedent.uk.co, etc. YOU need to get your facts straight."
Listen what part of my opinion don't you get, I read the accounts you described and I heard the American side of things, and I believe them before the other guy, call me prejudiced, whatever. You believe whom ever you wish, ok? We don't have to agree and I do have my facts straight.
"You are right, I do not know what you read--but there is no evidence for it in your communication."
Like there is for yours? You believe what you believe, I believe what I believe. My communication stated I believed that the soldiers said it was a mistake, you prefer to believe they purposely killed those Brits, I don't agree. Evidence indeed, neither of us has sufficient evidence, just belief of a story said by two different groups of people.
" I will delightedly provide sources for my arguments. Will you do all of the courtesy of providing your sources."
No need, I believe you because I read the same thing, I don't believe them, under oath or not, under oath doesn't mean squat to me, people lie. British people and American people. I will believe the Americans first; unless thay have PROOF the Brits are right.
"The Electoral College is not democratic, yet you argue for democracy. It can't be both ways."
Please quote where I have argued for democracy, post it here for everybody to see, I didn't. You assume and put words in my mouth. I said he was elected by the law, deal with it, I didn't argue for democracy, in fact I don't like how it worked much either, but it's the law and you can whine till dooms day, until someone changes it, the next 20 Presidents can be elected this way.
Now if you want to debate and understand I might not agree, and if you decide to read what I say and not assume and twist everything (I'll agree to the same) and then agree we won't always agree. I'm willing to extend an olive branch and start over. I'm always open to learning.
Posted 25 April 2003 - 02:29 PM
Well then, what should happen to you then since you want me dead? What does that make you besides a hypocrite?
I know people like you NazisSuk2002, you believe it's ok to be a pig, rude, loudmouthed, foulmouthed and a moron as long as it's you being the pig, rude, loudmouthed, foulmouthed and a moron.
Thank you for clearing that up:.
Posted 25 April 2003 - 03:06 PM
BTW --- Doc wiped the floor up with you. He proved you are an illiterate, pompous and moronic @ss.:mad:
Don't bother replying as I will be testing the IGNORE feature on you.
Posted 25 April 2003 - 03:29 PM
I also find it interesting that this discussion wasn't taken to another thread as it has nothing to do with moeration.
As for "NazisSuk2002", we have seen that distinctive writing "style" before (attacking others and not contributing to the discourse). We have not tolerated it for long.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users