General Chat / Decision 2004(for USA anyway..)

Speaking of France, I heard a joke the other day. I will share it.

How many people does it take to defend France?






We don't know, they've never tried.

Mantis, did I ever say I assume that silence means acceptence? No. I said the populus.

And I consider socialist states to be depriving people of their right to property, and parts of Europe free speach too.

I think you're a racist, or a supremist, one or the other, but you just meddle around with words to make it sound like A.) you know everything B.) you're not a racist and/or C.) you're not a supremist. But what ever, why should I give a rat's ass like your over goddamn generalized muslim race? Maybe it's just you're getting on my nerves...

And I consider socialist states to be depriving people of their right to property, and parts of Europe free speach too.

I'm just wondering, but how does socialism deprive people of their right to property?

I think you're a racist, or a supremist, one or the other, but you just meddle around with words to make it sound like A.) you know everything  B.) you're not a racist and/or  C.) you're not a supremist.  But what ever, why should I give a rat's ass like your over goddamn generalized muslim race?  Maybe it's just you're getting on my nerves...

 

May you should just learn to comprehend English. I have said nothing racist. I have made no sweaping generalizations about Muslims or any other group. Find a racist comment made by me. I challenge you to it. You will not find one. You can only make sweaping generalizations about me.

I'm just wondering, but how does socialism deprive people of their right to property?

Because I belive that no government have the right to redistribute wealth.

Go rule the goddam world in your little corner, maybe there you'll find some actual support. I'm sure your gi-joes, toy soldiers, and army figures don't mind being told they don't know shit everytime even a hint of politics gets tossed up in the air. Ok, whatever, you're not a racist, you might not even be a bastard of a supremist, but I can't comprehend your English if all you do is make sweeping generalizations of public opinions of whole countries.

Maybe you should conquer Cuba or something for a Social Science Fair Project, you might actually do someone some good.

Oh, BTW

comprehend English

no government have the right

STFU

Oh no I made a mistake. How awful of me. Damn this divinity complex. How dare you question me. [/sarcasm]

So what basis do you have for me being a racist? You have none. And you obviously ment racism as in its new definition of prejudging, which you just did. I am not making sweeping generalizations here, you are.

so are you in some kind of way saying that Robin Hood was a bad guy, for redistributing the wealth?

We've gone the Socialist route before with Coaster Ed so i'm going to keep out of that. I support a Democratic Socialist party, because i believe it works, its a more fairer government balance and i do not see it hindernce except maybe an annoyance to the highest classes. because the higher classes will still be higher then all the rest. It is still possible to go up the ladder of wealth. Only more money from the wealthy all together through taxes is spent on things like Universal healthcare - even if the place isn't nice if you can afford a nicer one go there but for those cant they can use it I'm not necessarily picky about the place as long as i have my health - and General education which even runs into college for some nations, like Spain. but that is not my point in this reply.

We have very different ideologies. your more pro-two party system, your pro-more war, you fear a minority group because no massive group has come out denouncing terrorism when you fail to see the reasons for terrorism. I'm more multi-party system, less pro-war, more covert actions underneath media notice, more less fearful of the general populus especially the USA and Europe.

I'll explain this to you, MOST Muslim's today do not want the publicity, more muslims cannot blame the terrorist for their actions or should i say reactions to political moves on their lands or on their homes. So much shit goes down in the Middle East its the reason why their 6 million muslims in America and 13 million Muslims in Western Europe with an additional 6 Muslims living in Eastern Europe. Most muslims just so i can place your fears to rest are not going to grab a gun and blow themselves up, maybe if America lets Israel bomb Mecca sometime soon, and they wont, but if they would let em' get off the hook your going to see a lot of pissed off rioting Muslim's across the world. then i'll bet you'll point your finger and say "see they really are terrorist, look you can see them rioting in evil socialist France".

What you said to me in a political debate that not enough Muslim's were out in the street, that their wasn't enough people out there trying to make people know. Muslim's don't try anymore to go to American media outlets anymore to get their points across. most of us see the media as politically bias and would take the opportunity of making it plainly a joke. but in your politically driven arguement the point you drove about not enough Muslim's spoke out, seems to me a reason for the labeling of Muslim's in the West. As an untrustworthy people that need to be spied on and watched. the very thing the people left their Middle Eastern homelands for in the first place to begin with.

http://www.islamfort...m/terrorism.htm

Muslim's crossed today by the reason's for terrorism, we all together denounce a Jihad against America, because America isn't the Nazi killing Muslim's, their is no need for a Jihad. What i find most is religion is placed in the hearts those so hopeless by the actions we have taken against their homelands directly or indirectly. It is so much easier to get hopeless people with nothing to lose, scared and now religious and politically motivated to go out and do the things they do.

It tells me something that most Muslim's Arabs live in Michigan, the bulk of the minority (so if one day you go Nazi/Gestapo style on us, sadly go their if you wanna kill us) was half and half last election (2000) to Bush or Gore, in 2004 despite Kerry lost, Michigan's Muslim minority (a very large minority) made the huge difference in the election to vote out Bush. Because while Muslim's altogether will agree that Bush's adminastration is a hell of a lot of better then Omar's Afghanistan, They fear anymore spying and perhaps gestapo actions to be taken against them. after all we have reason when Patriot Act was passed. Kerry in many Muslim Americans eyes, was a step up better and safer then with Bush. Muslim's in America despite Bush's heartfelt words after 9-11 were quickly erased with the Iraqi war, same war that has made resentful in the world. and many Muslim's don't feel all too safe with Bush and buddies running the country. But take note, their was no Muslim Americans bombing or trying to shoot the president, they went to the polls, they went to the rallys to protest or support. they did all the things all other Americans do.

Where the hell did I ever say I support the two party system? I have said and explained repeatedly that "I am a republican, but not a Republican". And multiple times I have also expressed my idealogical allegiance to the Libertarian Party.

Where the hell did I ever say I want more war? I have only expressed a belief that sometimes war is the only solution. Your rhetoric makes me out to be some war hawk who just wants to bomb every body.

This is one I really want an answer to. Where did I say I am fearful of Muslims or any minority group? You started this bull shit about me hating and/or fearing Muslims. Should I just start slandering you? I bet i can find a whole host of slurs to use. I gave my opinion for the reaction of other people.

I'm not baseing my rhetoric out of total bullshit but out of what you said

"The reason Muslims are considered terrorists by default in this contry is because only one small group has come out and rejected the actions and beliefs of the terrorists. If only a small group is out right rejecting these terrorists then most people will assume that they are the minority and the terrorists are the majority. "

-7th page you said it LazyBoy. this is the stuff of fear, which therefore isn't far for me to say your are fearful of the Muslim group. I don't know you personally so i can't say, but were in such a heated arguement my assumptions of you is what i base off of what you say.

Your more lenient to war then i would be, and you are more lenient to a two party system, in the sense of a two party system i mean, your giving up any hope that a third party could EVER be a driving force in politics today. It sounds the same to me as people saying give up on the Polio vaccine because you'll never make it, things change. In that sense you seem to me more pro two party system or -scratch that- a two party conformist, someone who thinks its a fantasy for a third party to rise. Which contrary to what you say i see rising steadily as every passes by.

you are more pro-war then i am, no i do not think your a warhawk . but as you said "sometimes war is the only choice" the last two wars with Iraq was not "our only choice" we went by choice, which i'm against for other reasons which are not part of this arguement. the only wars i see where we had "no choice" were WW 1, WW II, and Invasion of Afghanistan. the rest were all on ideological ordeals and did not have anything to do with our presence there.

I have never stated that I believed Muslim terrorists to be the majority. I have stated over and over again that it is my opinion behind the mass belief. You did start this with your bullshit when you said "to you i guess i'm just as much a could-be terrorist as someone i've never met in Iraq" which as you can see comes before my post on the seventh page.

I have only said that a third party is ridiculous in jumping over everything and going straight for the presidency. As I stated in another thread a third patry can become large enough is if it grows. The best way being to find a state prime for their message and pushing it their. An example would be a the Free State Project.

How the hell is World War I a no choice war? The whole thing is over bullshit. Europe had eurpted into war before. The US had no role in it.

If only a small group is out right rejecting these terrorists then most people will assume that they are the minority and the terrorists are the majority.

I have never stated that I believed Muslim terrorists to be the majority.

step 1: open mouth

step 2: insert foot

Speaking of France, I heard a joke the other day.  I will share it.

How many people does it take to defend France?
We don't know, they've never tried.

Still, they did help us defend ourselves in a war we started and wouldn't have won without them.

Funny how you "Patriotic" asshole types can remember that far back into France's history but not ours.

(we're still cool bro)

Lazyboy: If you are a Libertarian, why don't you vote Libertarian?!?! How can there be a change without action? The conservative and liberal media alike sit on their perch and declare that the third parties don't stand a chance, and the Americans buy it. Like I said, when Perot recieved proper media attention (i.e. the National Debates) he recieved either 15 million or 15% popular vote. Either is significant. If no one votes for the third parties, then duuuuuuuuuh they won't win. A fucking elephant is smart enough to know that, and they aren't granted the right to vote. (Yet ironically....)

Mantis, did I ever say I assume that silence means acceptence? No. I said the populus.

I don't really see how that changes your argument

Speaking of France, I heard a joke the other day.  I will share it.

How many people does it take to defend France?






We don't know, they've never tried.

Before you start slagging off the French, who the fuck helped get the "American independence". The French. Wheres the statue of Liberty from? France.

Some extracts from a nice article for you.

Verdun. Just that name was enough to make Frenchmen and Germans, the few who survived it, wake up yelling for years afterward. The French lost 1.5 million men out of a total population of 40 million fighting the Germans from 1914-1918. A lot of those guys died charging German machine-gun nests with bayonets. I'd really like to see one of you office smartasses joke about "surrender monkeys" with a French soldier, 1914 vintage. You'd piss your dockers.

Okay, heres some victories for you.

Here's a quick sampler of some of my favorite French victories, like an antidote to those ignorant websites. We'll start way back and move up to the 20th century.

Tours, 732 AD: The Muslims had already taken Spain and were well on their way to taking the rest of Europe. The only power with a chance of stopping them was the French army under Charles "the Hammer" Martel, King of the Franks (French), who answered to the really cool nickname "the Hammer of God." It was the French who saved the continent's ass. All the smart money was on the Muslims: there were 60,000 of them, crazy Jihadis whose cavalry was faster and deadlier than any in Europe. The French army was heavily outnumbered and had no cavalry. Fighting in phalanxes, they held against dozens of cavalry charges and after at least two days of hand-to-hand combat, finally managed to hack their way to the Muslim center and kill their commander. The Muslims retreated to Spain, and Europe developed as an independent civilization.

Orleans, May 1429: Joan of Arc: is she the most insanely cool military commander in history or what? This French peasant girl gets instructions from her favorite saints to help out the French against the English invaders. She goes to the King (well, the Dauphin, but close enough) and tells him to give her the army and she'll take it from there. And somehow she convinces him. She takes the army, which has lost every battle it's been in lately, to Orleans, which is under English siege. Now Joan is a nice girl, so she tries to settle things peaceably. She explains in a letter to the enemy commanders that everything can still be cool, "...provided you give up France...and go back to your own countries, for God's sake. And if you do not, wait for the Maid, who will visit you briefly to your great sorrow." The next day she put on armor, mounted a charger, and prepared to lead the attack on the besiegers' fortifications. She ordered the gates opened, but the Mayor refused until Joan explained that she, personally, would cut off his head. The gates went up, the French sallied out, and Joan led the first successful attack they'd made in years. The English strongpoints were taken, the siege was broken, and Joan's career in the cow-milking trade was over.

Braddock's Defeat (aka Battle of Monongahela) July 1755: Next time you're driving through the Ohio Valley, remember you're passing near the site of a great French victory over an Anglo-American force twice its size. General Edward Braddock marched west from Virginia with 1,500 men--a very large army in 18th-c. America. His orders were to seize French land and forts in the Valley--your basic undeclared land-grab invasion. The French joined the local tribes to resist, and then set up a classic ambush. It was a slaughter. More than half of Braddock's force--880 men--were killed or wounded. The only Anglo officer to escape unhurt was this guy called George Washington, and even he had two horses shot out from under him. After a few minutes of non-stop fire from French and Indians hidden in the woods, Braddock's command came apart like something out of Nam, post-Tet. Braddock was hit and wounded, but none of his troops would risk getting shot to rescue him.

Austerlitz, Dec. 1805: You always hear about Austerlitz as "Napoleon's Greatest Victory," like the little guy personally went out and wiped out the combined Russian and Austrian armies. The fact is, ever since the Revolution in 1789, French armies had been kicking ass against everybody. They were free citizens fighting against scared peasant and degenerate mercenaries, and it was no contest. At Austerlitz, 65,000 French troops took on 90,000 Russians and Austrians and destroyed them. Absolutely annihilated them. The French lost only 8,000, compared to 29,000 of the enemy. The tactics Bonaparte used were very risky, and would only have worked with superb troops: he encouraged the enemy to attack a weak line, then brought up reinforcements who'd been held out of sight. That kind of tactical plan takes iron discipline and perfect timing--and the French had it.

Jena, Oct. 1806: just a quick reminder for anybody who thinks the Germans always beat the French. Napoleon takes on the Prussian army and destroys it. 27,000 Prussian casualties vs. 5,000 French. Prussian army routed, pursued for miles by French cavalry.

Some information about WW2 for you.

Shit, we strut around like we're so tough and we can't even handle a few uppity Iraqi villages. These guys faced the Germans head on for five years, and we call them cowards? And at the end, it was the Germans, not the French, who said "calf rope."

When the sequel war came, the French relied on their frontier fortifications and used their tanks (which were better than the Germans', one on one) defensively. The Germans had a newer, better offensive strategy. So they won. And the French surrendered. Which was damn sensible of them.

This was the WEHRMACHT. In two years, they conquered all of Western Europe and lost only 30,000 troops in the process. That's less than the casualties of Gettysburg. You get the picture? Nobody, no army on earth, could've held off the Germans under the conditions that the French faced them. The French lost because they had a long land border with Germany. The English survived because they had the English Channel between them and the Wehrmacht. When the English Army faced the Wermacht at Dunkirk, well, thanks to spin the tuck-tail-and-flee result got turned into some heroic tale of a brilliant British retreat. The fact is, even the Brits behaved like cowards in the face of the Wermacht, abandoning the French. It's that simple

Also, for a final thing for all you American French haters.

The thing that gets to me is why Americans hate the French so much when they only did us good and never did us any harm. Like, why not hate the Brits? They're the ones who killed thousands of Americans in the Revolution, and thirty years later they came back and attacked us again. That time around they managed to burn Washington DC to the ground while they were at it. How come you web jerks never mention that?

So yeah, whatever, go eat your "freedom fries" or whatever the hell you call them.

[quote name='Micool' date='Nov 9 2004, 05:29 AM'][quote name='Outlaw' date='Nov 8 2004, 05:43 PM']
Lazyboy: If you are a Libertarian, why don't you vote Libertarian?!?! How can there be a change without action? The conservative and liberal media alike sit on their perch and declare that the third parties don't stand a chance, and the Americans buy it. Like I said, when Perot recieved proper media attention (i.e. the National Debates) he recieved either 15 million or 15% popular vote. Either is significant. If no one votes for the third parties, then duuuuuuuuuh they won't win. A fucking elephant is smart enough to know that, and they aren't granted the right to vote. (Yet ironically....)[/quote]
answer:

lzb obviously would rather say that the guy he voted for won than actually vote his conscience. You forget that people like him like to feel important. Isn't that obvious by now? =P

Blitz, can you read? I said most people will assume not that I believe. So fuck off.

Micool, I will vote Libertarian in many cases. But as I said it would be best for a third party to start small. That way they have people in lower offices to reference when running for a higher office. I have mentioned the Free State Project several times on these forums. The idea is to make New Hampshire a very Libertarian state and show what the Libertarians can do.

mantis, I was stating my opinion on others. Coming to a conclusion on the thoughts of others does not mean I reflect them myself.

Well then Lazyboy, I completely agree with you. But I am still a little confused. Do you or don't you believe a third party can ever seriously compete? (ie win a presidential election)

And I would like the Green Party to show what they can do too...or at least Nader. I think Nader should win something before he dies. He really deserves it.

I believe a third party can compete in the presidency but only after establishing itself in other offices. So right now a third party cannot compete unless with serious financial support. Patience and perseverance is the key to a third party winning the presidency.

I love it Nic, my 10 second post made you waste a good amount of time researching the history of France. I have another joke, come to think of it.

From an E-Bay auction:

AUTHENTIC FRENCH RIFLE!!!
IN MINT CONDITION!!!
DROPPED ONCE, BUT NEVER FIRED!!!