Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
obama should become the president of the great united states of america once a black man becomes prez we can finally prove that racism is over and then my people can start to take over
Or we can have McCain, who won't suck. Besides, 'President David Palmer' is a better president than Obama will ever be.
wow. I almost thought that said "Osama"
BlueThen wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 23:48 wow. I almost thought that said "Osama" u would, wouldn't you..........................................................terrorist
Rocko you're a retard, and that's all there is to it. Also, if you comment on this post, you will obtain the IQ level of HORQWER, and his associates.
Rocko wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 00:33 obama should become the president of the great united states of america once a black man becomes prez we can finally prove that racism is over and then my people can start to take over People like you are the reason racism exists. You're voting for your president based on skin color instead of giving an actual reason why he's a better choice.
If elect him as president BECAUSE he is black that isn't proving racism doesn't exist... it is proving that it is still alive and well.
razorblade001 wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 10:09 If elect him as president BECAUSE he is black that isn't proving racism doesn't exist... it is proving that it is still alive and well.
The previous two posts are correct. Thread now over. However, just as a random thought, do you reckon there are some African nations who are yet to have a white president?
CarrierII wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 11:41 The previous two posts are correct. Thread now over. However, just as a random thought, do you reckon there are some African nations who are yet to have a white president? EDIT: nvm, read post wrong. >_>
RoShamBo wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 18:37 Oblivion for president. Agreed!
Rocko wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 23:54 BlueThen wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 23:48 wow. I almost thought that said "Osama" u would, wouldn't you..........................................................terrorist That was ignorant beyond belief.
Zion Fox wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 12:56 RoShamBo wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 18:37 Oblivion for president. Agreed!
Rocko wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 23:33 obama should become the president of the great united states of america once a black man becomes prez we can finally prove that racism is over and then my people can start to take over Doesn't voting for someone just because they are black seem kinda...racist?
GoArmy44 wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 20:34 Rocko wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 23:33 obama should become the president of the great united states of america once a black man becomes prez we can finally prove that racism is over and then my people can start to take over Doesn't voting for someone just because they are black seem kinda...racist? razorblade001 wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 11:09 If you elect him as president BECAUSE he is black that isn't proving racism doesn't exist... it is proving that it is still alive and well.
it doesn't work like that
nothing proves racism is over like a statement along the lines of "my people can start to take over"
The trick is to be prejudice against all races.
Racism exists because race is far too acknowledged in our society. I laugh at organizations that consider themselves "equal opportunity" yet still have that group box in their applications asking you to check what race you associate with the most. Especially Universities. If they were truly equal opportunity, the damn checkboxes wouldn't be there in the first place. Sometimes for a laugh I check "American Indian/Pacific Islander" just because I have a card that can prove it.
We had one of those in collage, "please tick which race you are most" or something like that. Some people were ticking Asian/Chinese. Why are blacks so offended by "n igger"? I mean, is it because they feel insecure about their race?
Goodness knows, but after a small arguement in computing class today, I'm going to suggest something - Discrimination against left-handed people is far more common-place, ingrained and virtually impossible to remove than any other form of discrimination. Comments? (Yes, I'm left handed, but I play the guitar right handed, use my mouse with the right hand and bat in cricket right handedly, although I can do that with my left hand as well, can't write with my right hand though)
All I need is lube and my rig-.. wait.. CarrierII, you tricked me, damn it!
Jecht wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:05 Racism exists because race is far too acknowledged in our society. I laugh at organizations that consider themselves "equal opportunity" yet still have that group box in their applications asking you to check what race you associate with the most. Especially Universities. If they were truly equal opportunity, the damn checkboxes wouldn't be there in the first place. That isn't racism... It is proven that large portions of races conduct themselves in a specific way or have specific characteristics. Also, if it is on a school application or a job application, it is probably something that is used to tell the board where you would be more comfortable. If you would be more comfortable with people you are more accustomed being around and what not. It is more of a "get to know your personality better" thing that a racist thing.
razorblade001 wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 13:58 That isn't racism... It is proven that large portions of races conduct themselves in a specific way or have specific characteristics. Also, if it is on a school application or a job application, it is probably something that is used to tell the board where you would be more comfortable. If you would be more comfortable with people you are more accustomed being around and what not. It is more of a "get to know your personality better" thing that a racist thing. where on earth did you get these ideas from?
razorblade001 wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 13:58 Jecht wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:05 Racism exists because race is far too acknowledged in our society. I laugh at organizations that consider themselves "equal opportunity" yet still have that group box in their applications asking you to check what race you associate with the most. Especially Universities. If they were truly equal opportunity, the damn checkboxes wouldn't be there in the first place. That isn't racism... It is proven that large portions of races conduct themselves in a specific way or have specific characteristics. Also, if it is on a school application or a job application, it is probably something that is used to tell the board where you would be more comfortable. If you would be more comfortable with people you are more accustomed being around and what not. It is more of a "get to know your personality better" thing that a racist thing. Also for survey purposes.
Jecht wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 03:32 And in the case of Universities? I said so they have a better idea where YOU are more comfortable.
Rocko wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 23:33 obama should become the president of the great united states of america once a black man becomes prez we can finally prove that racism is over and then my people can start to take over ROFL, Rocko, you are by FAR the funniest kid on the forums atm
i hate hilary clinton shes a slut bag
Rocko wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 00:33 obama should become the president of the great united states of america once a black man becomes prez we can finally prove that racism is over and then my people can start to take over why would you want a democrat in power? all they do is take away your freedoms and higher taxes. who the hell wants that?
AngeLFaN wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 22:58 i hate hilary clinton shes a slut bag Um... if she was such a slut, I doubt Bill would be trying to tap everything with two breasts and an ass that came his way.
Quote: why would you want a democrat in power? all they do is take away your freedoms and higher taxes. who the hell wants that? So would the Republicans, only a lot faster.
Right, so when George Bush decided to lower your taxes, you complained, but when clinton decided to raise them, you didn't say a word. You my friend, are a screwed up individual.
Quote: Right, so when George Bush decided to lower your taxes, you complained, but when clinton decided to raise them, you didn't say a word. You my friend, are a screwed up individual. No, actually, he raised them significantly just so he can get more money to rape Iraqi woman, and raised the ceiling for getting the country into a record amount of debt. And even though I don't care, Clinton actually eliminated your budget deficit that was greatly increased by Reagan and Bush 1. And you still fail to answer the part about Republicans taking away your precious civil liberties that you apparently don't care about.
nikki6ixx wrote on Sat, 15 December 2007 03:13 AngeLFaN wrote on Thu, 13 December 2007 22:58 i hate hilary clinton shes a slut bag Um... if she was such a slut, I doubt Bill would be trying to tap everything with two breasts and an ass that came his way. AngeLFaN, you are retarded.
Rocko wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 23:05 republicans are next nazis Tell us more bullshit.
newcheese wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 23:50 why would you want a democrat in power? all they do is take away your freedoms and higher taxes. who the hell wants that? democrats take away your freedoms, but republicans don't? ummmm... Patriot Act? death of habeas corpus? wiretapping? dismantling of the Constitution? rendition?
Oprah in my opinion. LOL
prasp wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 23:02 Quote: Right, so when George Bush decided to lower your taxes, you complained, but when clinton decided to raise them, you didn't say a word. You my friend, are a screwed up individual. No, actually, he raised them significantly just so he can get more money to rape Iraqi woman, and raised the ceiling for getting the country into a record amount of debt. And even though I don't care, Clinton actually eliminated your budget deficit that was greatly increased by Reagan and Bush 1. And you still fail to answer the part about Republicans taking away your precious civil liberties that you apparently don't care about. Man, if you stuck to using facts in your arguments, your opinion would have a lot more merit. You state very good points but "just so he can get more money to rape Iraqi women" makes you look like a moron. Quote: newcheese wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 23:50 why would you want a democrat in power? all they do is take away your freedoms and higher taxes. who the hell wants that? democrats take away your freedoms, but republicans don't? ummmm... Patriot Act? death of habeas corpus? wiretapping? dismantling of the Constitution? rendition? Habeas corpus started dying in the 90's...Clinton signed a law that placed limitations on Habeas corpus in the name of...you guessed it...anti-terrorism. I don't know why people argue for and against parties...as an Independent they all look the same to me.
Everything's more useful then Bush as a president... if you dig a little bit... he has some strange connections to people i don't want to rule the USA ... and he is a supporter of the "schock strategie"
Quote: Man, if you stuck to using facts in your arguments, your opinion would have a lot more merit. You state very good points but "just so he can get more money to rape Iraqi women" makes you look like a moron. Ok you want facts? Incidents like this basically go unreported by the press due to censorship by the Pentagon, and any soldier reporting any of this to their superior officers are likely to get silenced by their own comrades.
CONSPIRACY THEORY! The government is here! RUN ET, RUN!
Conspiracy? If you want I can get whole articles on this full with pictures. Link: http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm(the penises are edited out, so no you sick fucks, don't expect any porn)
I agree partially with Prasp. The thing is, what we see and hear is not what all there is to see and hear. There are lot of things going on the background that ordinary down-to-the-earth folks like us don't know about. EDIT: Another important thing to remember is that a conspiracy is not a conspiracy after a bit of truth is found to support it logically.
No, a conspiracy is still a conspiracy no matter what proof you have weather to it existing or not. I think you mean to say a theory is only a theory until proved otherwise. Conspiracy: Evil or unlawful plan created in secret by 2 or more people. Theory: A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. (An idea that isn't proved but uses real logic to back it up)
Reposting so that nobody can say they didn't read it: Links: http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm http://www.aztlan.net/nineyearoldrapevictim.htm http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5653 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HAS505A.html http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20239021.htm http://womenagainstrape.net/war%20website/PressCoverage/AllIraqisAbuGraib.htm http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hassan310504.htm http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000183.php http://www.madre.org/articles/me/iraqreport/partseven.html http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-539010
R315r4z0r wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 20:15 No, a conspiracy is still a conspiracy no matter what proof you have weather to it existing or not. I think you mean to say a theory is only a theory until proved otherwise. That's what you have been told and that is the simple reasoning behind which the perpetrators escape quite easily. BTW, I am not talking about "proof." I am talking about truth. If a truth emerges that may seem to indicate that a conspiracy may actually have some credibility, then it is no longer a conspiracy; it becomes a theory (with bits of factual evidence). And this in turn should be fully investigated until proven otherwise. To still maintain that it is a conspiracy (without critically looking into the truth) highlights the degree to which a person lacks individual initiative and critical thinking.
Not necessarily. If the Conspiracy itself is to be put into action it is then public knowledge, but the plan itself is still a conspiracy. So basically the truth of the matter is that the conspiracy does exists, and since it does exist with proof, it can't be a theory because a theory is a logical idea without proof. So if you have proof of the conspiracy being true, how can it be a theory? O.o
I was referring to the process of them both getting validated. Just as a theory would be put on hold while facts are being gathered to support it, I see a conspiracy (that has proof) as something that would be put on hold while the gathered evidence are put together to support it. prasp wrote on Thu, 03 January 2008 20:20 Reposting so that nobody can say they didn't read it: Links: http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm http://www.aztlan.net/nineyearoldrapevictim.htm http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5653 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/HAS505A.html http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20239021.htm http://womenagainstrape.net/war%20website/PressCoverage/AllIraqisAbuGraib.htm http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hassan310504.htm http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000183.php http://www.madre.org/articles/me/iraqreport/partseven.html http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-539010 This is just wrong. But this happens wherever there is war. And the respective militaries cover up incidents that could be covered to maintain their squeaky clean image.
R3, are the links proof enough to confirm what I'm saying is true, or do I have to tell you of what the Phoenix Program was?
I didn't click 'em, cause I never said I didn't believe you. But like I said before, just because you can prove it exists doesn't change the fact that it is a conspiracy
Let me settle this argument: The US is not ready for a BLACK MUSLIM as their president. We're waring with MUSLIMS right now, and if anyone hasn't already noticed....Blacks aren't exactly the most respected group in America, or on the world scale for that matter. Picking him to be our president would mean 2 things: 1, We'd be total hypocrits. We go over to start a war with muslims, then elect one as our president. Fishy, huh? 2, Blacks aren't ''equal'' to whites. Despite what you may think, blacks are NOT and for quite a while will not BE equal to whites. And why? Simply because they aren't treated the same way, or looked at the same way as whites, they're still seen even TODAY as the lower genetic classes, true or not. Sure, certain black people make it to the top, but not without going through hell to get there. 90% of the people in power today are whites, and for the reason of.............RACISM. ISN'T. OVER. I hate to break it to all of you who love Obama, but I have some news for you, believe it or not: Obama isn't going to win. He CAN'T win. Don't you understand why he was put in the election? To make it seem like Blacks and Muslims, America's two most hated minorities, are becoming more ''equal'', not that he would actually WIN. Campaigns for the most part are hoaxes, they tell you the elections are 100% fair and equal, but they aren't. Because racism isn't over, will NEVER BE over, as long as the majority of people in the country and world is White, Whites will always be the ones in power. That may make some of you angry, or think I'm a racist. I'm not. I'm just telling you the cold hard truth. And...@ Rocko: You want to know the reason racism isn't over and will never be over? Because you haven't excepted the fact that your race isn't in power right now, and chances are, won't be for a very, VERY long time. Its not over because you make comments like, ''So my people can take over''. I have some news for you, your ''people'' as you call us won't be taking over, due to the fact that this IS a White country, and has been for the last, oh, 200 some years. And by the way, just so I can assure you I'm not a white Supremacist, I'm Black. Yeah, that sounds pretty self-hating, but its not, its just the truth, and I've come to accept it.
You're not at war with muslims, you're at war with terrorists (More accurately, you're at war with the concept of terrorism, which means you can't win, until you control people's minds... lol!) The fact is, the terrorists just tend to be muslims, it's not related. There are many parts of the Ko'ran which preach peace, just like the bible.
MWright967 wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 20:28 Let me settle this argument: The US is not ready for a BLACK MUSLIM as their president. We're waring with MUSLIMS right now, and if anyone hasn't already noticed....Blacks aren't exactly the most respected group in America, or on the world scale for that matter. Picking him to be our president would mean 2 things: 1, We'd be total hypocrits. We go over to start a war with muslims, then elect one as our president. Fishy, huh? 2, Blacks aren't ''equal'' to whites. Despite what you may think, blacks are NOT and for quite a while will not BE equal to whites. And why? Simply because they aren't treated the same way, or looked at the same way as whites, they're still seen even TODAY as the lower genetic classes, true or not. Sure, certain black people make it to the top, but not without going through hell to get there. 90% of the people in power today are whites, and for the reason of.............RACISM. ISN'T. OVER. I hate to break it to all of you who love Obama, but I have some news for you, believe it or not: Obama isn't going to win. He CAN'T win. Don't you understand why he was put in the election? To make it seem like Blacks and Muslims, America's two most hated minorities, are becoming more ''equal'', not that he would actually WIN. Campaigns for the most part are hoaxes, they tell you the elections are 100% fair and equal, but they aren't. Because racism isn't over, will NEVER BE over, as long as the majority of people in the country and world is White, Whites will always be the ones in power. That may make some of you angry, or think I'm a racist. I'm not. I'm just telling you the cold hard truth. And...@ Rocko: You want to know the reason racism isn't over and will never be over? Because you haven't excepted the fact that your race isn't in power right now, and chances are, won't be for a very, VERY long time. Its not over because you make comments like, ''So my people can take over''. I have some news for you, your ''people'' as you call us won't be taking over, due to the fact that this IS a White country, and has been for the last, oh, 200 some years. And by the way, just so I can assure you I'm not a white Supremacist, I'm Black. Yeah, that sounds pretty self-hating, but its not, its just the truth, and I've come to accept it. Muslims aren't terrorists you fool. way to go ruin your speech, rofl.
Ryu wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 14:32 MWright967 wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 20:28 Let me settle this argument: The US is not ready for a BLACK MUSLIM as their president. We're waring with MUSLIMS right now, and if anyone hasn't already noticed....Blacks aren't exactly the most respected group in America, or on the world scale for that matter. Picking him to be our president would mean 2 things: 1, We'd be total hypocrits. We go over to start a war with muslims, then elect one as our president. Fishy, huh? 2, Blacks aren't ''equal'' to whites. Despite what you may think, blacks are NOT and for quite a while will not BE equal to whites. And why? Simply because they aren't treated the same way, or looked at the same way as whites, they're still seen even TODAY as the lower genetic classes, true or not. Sure, certain black people make it to the top, but not without going through hell to get there. 90% of the people in power today are whites, and for the reason of.............RACISM. ISN'T. OVER. I hate to break it to all of you who love Obama, but I have some news for you, believe it or not: Obama isn't going to win. He CAN'T win. Don't you understand why he was put in the election? To make it seem like Blacks and Muslims, America's two most hated minorities, are becoming more ''equal'', not that he would actually WIN. Campaigns for the most part are hoaxes, they tell you the elections are 100% fair and equal, but they aren't. Because racism isn't over, will NEVER BE over, as long as the majority of people in the country and world is White, Whites will always be the ones in power. That may make some of you angry, or think I'm a racist. I'm not. I'm just telling you the cold hard truth. And...@ Rocko: You want to know the reason racism isn't over and will never be over? Because you haven't excepted the fact that your race isn't in power right now, and chances are, won't be for a very, VERY long time. Its not over because you make comments like, ''So my people can take over''. I have some news for you, your ''people'' as you call us won't be taking over, due to the fact that this IS a White country, and has been for the last, oh, 200 some years. And by the way, just so I can assure you I'm not a white Supremacist, I'm Black. Yeah, that sounds pretty self-hating, but its not, its just the truth, and I've come to accept it. Muslims aren't terrorists you fool. way to go ruin your speech, rofl. Actually my witty little friend, its been statistically proven that 78% or more of Muslims in the Middle East ARE affiliated with Al Queada. Also, I think you fail to see THE POINT OF THE POST. I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists. I'm saying, we have a constant eye out for Muslims. We dislike them, and treat them like crap, for better or for worse. We are waging war with MUSLIMS. Terrorists or non-terrorists. So please, spare us your ''witt'' and try not to make anymore of a fool out of yourself than you already have.
Did you know that 83.2% of all percentages are made up on the spot.
MWright967 wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 20:37 Ryu wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 14:32 MWright967 wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 20:28 Let me settle this argument: The US is not ready for a BLACK MUSLIM as their president. We're waring with MUSLIMS right now, and if anyone hasn't already noticed....Blacks aren't exactly the most respected group in America, or on the world scale for that matter. Picking him to be our president would mean 2 things: 1, We'd be total hypocrits. We go over to start a war with muslims, then elect one as our president. Fishy, huh? 2, Blacks aren't ''equal'' to whites. Despite what you may think, blacks are NOT and for quite a while will not BE equal to whites. And why? Simply because they aren't treated the same way, or looked at the same way as whites, they're still seen even TODAY as the lower genetic classes, true or not. Sure, certain black people make it to the top, but not without going through hell to get there. 90% of the people in power today are whites, and for the reason of.............RACISM. ISN'T. OVER. I hate to break it to all of you who love Obama, but I have some news for you, believe it or not: Obama isn't going to win. He CAN'T win. Don't you understand why he was put in the election? To make it seem like Blacks and Muslims, America's two most hated minorities, are becoming more ''equal'', not that he would actually WIN. Campaigns for the most part are hoaxes, they tell you the elections are 100% fair and equal, but they aren't. Because racism isn't over, will NEVER BE over, as long as the majority of people in the country and world is White, Whites will always be the ones in power. That may make some of you angry, or think I'm a racist. I'm not. I'm just telling you the cold hard truth. And...@ Rocko: You want to know the reason racism isn't over and will never be over? Because you haven't excepted the fact that your race isn't in power right now, and chances are, won't be for a very, VERY long time. Its not over because you make comments like, ''So my people can take over''. I have some news for you, your ''people'' as you call us won't be taking over, due to the fact that this IS a White country, and has been for the last, oh, 200 some years. And by the way, just so I can assure you I'm not a white Supremacist, I'm Black. Yeah, that sounds pretty self-hating, but its not, its just the truth, and I've come to accept it. Muslims aren't terrorists you fool. way to go ruin your speech, rofl. Actually my witty little friend, its been statistically proven that 78% or more of Muslims in the Middle East ARE affiliated with Al Queada. Also, I think you fail to see THE POINT OF THE POST. I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists. I'm saying, we have a constant eye out for Muslims. We dislike them, and treat them like crap, for better or for worse. We are waging war with MUSLIMS. Terrorists or non-terrorists. So please, spare us your ''witt'' and try not to make anymore of a fool out of yourself than you already have. 1) Back up that statistic. 2) No, you're waging war with terrorists, who happen to be Muslim. They could equally be any other faith or agnostic or athiest, they just happen to be Muslim. (On a side note, you're actually waging war with Islamic extremists, as the average Muslim isn't violent, either)
MWright967 wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 20:28 Let me settle this argument: The US is not ready for a BLACK MUSLIM as their president. We're waring with MUSLIMS right now, and if anyone hasn't already noticed....Blacks aren't exactly the most respected group in America, or on the world scale for that matter. Picking him to be our president would mean 2 things: 1, We'd be total hypocrits. We go over to start a war with muslims, then elect one as our president. Fishy, huh? 2, Blacks aren't ''equal'' to whites. Despite what you may think, blacks are NOT and for quite a while will not BE equal to whites. And why? Simply because they aren't treated the same way, or looked at the same way as whites, they're still seen even TODAY as the lower genetic classes, true or not. Sure, certain black people make it to the top, but not without going through hell to get there. 90% of the people in power today are whites, and for the reason of.............RACISM. ISN'T. OVER. I hate to break it to all of you who love Obama, but I have some news for you, believe it or not: Obama isn't going to win. He CAN'T win. Don't you understand why he was put in the election? To make it seem like Blacks and Muslims, America's two most hated minorities, are becoming more ''equal'', not that he would actually WIN. Campaigns for the most part are hoaxes, they tell you the elections are 100% fair and equal, but they aren't. Because racism isn't over, will NEVER BE over, as long as the majority of people in the country and world is White, Whites will always be the ones in power. That may make some of you angry, or think I'm a racist. I'm not. I'm just telling you the cold hard truth. And...@ Rocko: You want to know the reason racism isn't over and will never be over? Because you haven't excepted the fact that your race isn't in power right now, and chances are, won't be for a very, VERY long time. Its not over because you make comments like, ''So my people can take over''. I have some news for you, your ''people'' as you call us won't be taking over, due to the fact that this IS a White country, and has been for the last, oh, 200 some years. And by the way, just so I can assure you I'm not a white Supremacist, I'm Black. Yeah, that sounds pretty self-hating, but its not, its just the truth, and I've come to accept it. ur a disgrace to your own people boy
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 15:08 Did you know that 83.2% of all percentages are made up on the spot. Actually..Its 90%, just to be horribly specific >.> And, @ Rock: No. I'm not a disgrace to my own people. I dont have a ''people''. If YOU are my people, then I need to go and blow my brains out for having such sadistic, racist sons of bitches as my relatives.
You are just as racist as every single person in this thread. It is completely impossible to deny or escape it. Tell me something that "proves" you aren't and I will tell you something why you are.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 17:30 You are just as racist as every single person in this thread. It is completely impossible to deny or escape it. Tell me something that "proves" you aren't and I will tell you something why you are. I'm not racist because I don't believe in the superiority of any race. I do however believe that certain races are in power. And right now, whites are in power. Thats not being racist, thats being realistic. If I don't like it, and don't want to believe it, so what? It doesn't make it any less true. THEY are the police. THEY are the army. THEY are the authority figures. The rest of us are just the civilians, and the fact is, if they wanted all of us dead tomorrow, we couldn't do shit about it. I don't hate white people, and I don't hate anyone. The mongolians were the ones in power not too long ago in human history, and then the romans, and now the whites. We all have our day in the sun. Trying to say, ''No we're the best, we're just building up our army'' and shit like that isn't true, its just stupid. For all I know, whites may be in power till the end of all humans. However, I do know, that they aren't, or don't APPEAR to be any better than anyone else, and we're not any better than anyone else. They just organized themselves to achieve a better position. Most of us didn't. You can call me racist. I'm not. You want to know what the definition of racism is? Extreme hatred or disgust with a race. I don't have that. I'm a realist. I don't live in a freaking dream world that ''Blacks are the all powerfull'', or that ''Whites are the dang gone devils come to rape our world!''. I don't believe that shit, its all hocus pocus. You all can be some ignorant dumb fucks if you like, and call me racist, a race traitor, stupid, whatever. I don't give a crap what you think. But the fact is, whites are in power, and theres nothing we can do to change that. If they lose their position to anyone, its going to be the Mexicans or the Chinese.
How would you describe a person who, how should I put it... A person who doesn't hate or discriminate any specific race in particular. They do not believe in any one race being superior, however they DO pay attention to race. For example, if this person was on a bus and an Asian guy gets on and sits next to him, the person takes a special mental note that the person is Asian. Or if the person is walking down the street in an urban area late at night and no one around, and they see a Black guy walking towards them and starts to worry about if something is going to happen or not. Because this type of person isn't discriminating anyone. They are only paying special attention to race. So how would you describe that? Or as another example, what is the difference between a taxi cab driver that allows every race in his cab (And specifically advertises that he allows all races in his cab) and a taxi cab driver who doesn't allow Black guys in his cab?
R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 17:30 You are just as racist as every single person in this thread. It is completely impossible to deny or escape it. Tell me something that "proves" you aren't and I will tell you something why you are. That was ignorant, Razor. Everything he said makes sense. To call him a "racist" for making an observation is stupid.
You're going to have to explain that one to me. I didn't specifically call him a racist. I just acted on what he said about himself not being a racist. By someone saying that their are not a racist is just like saying my name doesn't start with an R.
Starbuzz wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 17:55 R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 17:30 You are just as racist as every single person in this thread. It is completely impossible to deny or escape it. Tell me something that "proves" you aren't and I will tell you something why you are. That was ignorant, Razor. Everything he said makes sense. To call him a "racist" for making an observation is stupid. My good sir, you are clearly on the upper level of intelligence. @ Razor: I believe you said, quote on quote, ''Give me a reason why you aren't and I'll tell you why you are''. Not everyone is a racist. And thank my good sir, you just admitted to being one by saying ''Not being racist is like not having R in my name''. Therefore, your case is now useless. Good bye.
huh? Everyone is racist. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. (I mean maybe not 'everyone' but it is very, VERY hard not to be. I'm talking blow up a car with a staple gun hard.) You see being racist is thinking one race is superior to another, or discriminated against. However, nowhere does it say the racist themselves has to be the one CAUSING the racism. Racism can all be in the head. For example: There are 3 people. One person is Mexican, one is White, and the other is Black. With me so far? Now, the White guy goes to the Mexican and discriminates him with whatever you see fit for being "discriminatory" (I'm not going into details.) The Black guy is sitting on the sidelines watching this, not involved with the other 2 in the least. This person watches what is happening and in his mind disagrees with what the White guy is saying. He refuses to believe that what the White guy is saying to the Mexican is worth even listening too. Since the Black guy does not know either one of the other 2 people, he simply references them as White man and Mexican man in his mind. He thinks of himself as he watches what is happening in front of him. And he realizes how much better he is than the White guy because he isn't the one being racist. (Or so he thinks) All 3 people in my opinion (with maybe the exception of the Mexican, depending on your own interpretation of the story) are racist. -The White guy is racist because he is discriminating the Mexican because of Race. -The Mexican is because he (might) be thinking that the White guy is superior to him. -The Black guy is because he thinks he is superior to the White guy and the Mexican. Superior to the White guy for not going out of his way to discriminate, and to the Mexican for feeling sorry he isn't standing up for himself) Anyway, if you aren't getting my stretch of an example, I will do my best to explain it in another way: You can be a racist and be a person who is prejudice against a specific race (or multiple races) or believe your race is superior. OR you can be a racist who disagrees that any one race is superior to another OR that other races are superior to your own. Because as it turns out, you are still segregating race in your mind. You may be doing it subconsciously but you are doing it. The only way, IMO, to not be racist is to disregard race completely. OH, and BTW, I did say that I wanted you to say why you thought you weren't racist and I would say why you where, however I did not say that I had to respond within the next post. I still haven't told you yet. Me, a few lines up Because as it turns out, you are still segregating race in your mind. You may be doing it subconsciously but you are doing it. The only way, IMO, to not be racist is to disregard race completely. There is your answer. EDIT: MWright967 wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 19:45 And thank my good sir, you just admitted to being one by saying ''Not being racist is like not having R in my name''. I just caught this. No I did not say that. You can scroll up and read it again if you like, but that is not what I said. What I said was more along the lines of this: "A PERSON saying that they themselves are NOT a racist, is just like me saying that my name does not start with an R" What you wrote, put quotes around, and said was mine was nothing but a failed attempt to say I said something I did not. However, I will not disagree that I think I am racist, along with every other person who posted, read, or even viewed the topic name of this thread. I am the kind of racist who believes no one race is superior to another. Much like yourself, from what I can gather. (I want to say one thing that is off topic a tad bit... from one debate opponent to another, and not saying anything bad about you personally, just you need to work on your quoting skills, because it will one day get you into trouble. What you did is called plagiarism and it is a very heavily weighed law in writing, and you can be sent to jail because of it. I counted two times that you did it. But if you don't know what I'm talking, I'd be happy to help: When you quote someone, let it be from whatever source, if you are quoting it, it needs to be word for word. Even if the overall theme of what was written is there, the words need to be there too!)
http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-endorses-obama-080103/ VOTE OBAMA NOW
@ R3: Thats your problem. You think I see the other people as the bad people. I don't. I told you this once and I'll tell you again: I think everyone is pretty much equal, give or take. I don't like one race more than the other. If me, part of the Black racial group was to do over the White racial group, I wouldn't care who dies, I wouldn't have a preferance, because I'm not racist, I don't value one person over another. You think everyone is racist because YOU are racist. I'm not racist. I don't like whites more than I like blacks, and I don't like blacks more than I like whites. They're just people when all comes down to it. So please, don't clump me in with racists, because if EVERYONE was a racist, there would be no such word, just like theres no word for ''People who eat food and stuff'', because its a given, its possessed by everyone. For there to be a word FOR something, there has to be a lack thereof. Not everyone is a racist. Learn it, and try to live it.
You didn't read my post... Or if you did, you didn't understand it... I used to think like this: I used to think I wasn't racist, until one day I was sitting there pondering.. something and all of a sudden it hit me. There is really no way you can't be racist unless you where brought up without ever being taught that people could be distinguished by race. I can't really paraphrase what my above post said, so can you just please read it? (It took me a while to get the story straight.. I edited it like 30 times) But the reason I can tell you didn't read it is because what you just said directly conflicts with what I said. I said you are still a racist for "this", "this", and "this." And then you just said you aren't a racist for one of the same reasons I said people ARE racist. I already said that I don't think any race is superior to another. Every race is equal. But by me thinking that, I am being racist! Anyway, what I am saying is, one person cannot consider themselves as not a racist, because the very fact that they said that is racist. And if you can 100% prove me wrong, doesn't only mean you aren't racist, but I am not either. It is like the cretan's paradox. When a cretan says that all cretans are liars.
Quote: Actually my witty little friend, its been statistically proven that 78% or more of Muslims in the Middle East ARE affiliated with Al Queada. Also, I think you fail to see THE POINT OF THE POST. I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists. I'm saying, we have a constant eye out for Muslims. We dislike them, and treat them like crap, for better or for worse. We are waging war with MUSLIMS. Terrorists or non-terrorists. So please, spare us your ''witt'' and try not to make anymore of a fool out of yourself than you already have. Probably the most ignorant post I've seen in this thread... 78% or more Muslims in the Mid East affiliated with Al Qaeda? 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, wouldn't that mean that Al Qaeda has over a billion affiliates? Half the people at my school are middle eastern, I don't know a single one who supports Al Qaeda, let alone is affiliated with it.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 23:03] Quote: Actually my witty little friend, its been statistically proven that 78% or more of Muslims in the Middle East ARE affiliated with Al Queada. Also, I think you fail to see THE POINT OF THE POST. I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists. I'm saying, we have a constant eye out for Muslims. We dislike them, and treat them like crap, for better or for worse. We are waging war with MUSLIMS. Terrorists or non-terrorists. So please, spare us your ''witt'' and try not to make anymore of a fool out of yourself than you already have. Probably the most ignorant post I've seen in this thread... 78% or more Muslims in the Mid East affiliated with Al Qaeda? 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, wouldn't that mean that Al Qaeda has over a billion affiliates? Half the people at my school are middle eastern, I don't know a single one who supports Al Qaeda, let alone is affiliated with it. I said in the MIDDLE EAST. Are you in the middle east? Because if so, and none of them support al queada, I would know you'de be...Uh...Lying.
@Razor: You argue such useless points. What a waste of time. Of course in that sense everyone is a "racist" since any idiot knows that there are a thousand different definitions for the word "racist." Some of those definitions are negative and the rest just descriptive. The most common definition we see today is the "superior/inferior" definition. Not only is this the widespread definition of racism but it is also the most negative. No one wants to be associated with this definition but your generalizations are pretty absurd in that that is what you are trying to do. Instead of arguing that all people are racists (they ARE based on different definitions) these are the folks you should be arguing against. The racism definition that me and MWright fall under is our acknowledgement that human beings are different based solely on race. While by thinking that we are being racists, it is not in the negative sense and so there is no further need to carry on this useless triade of yours. Me and him believe that other than that purely PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE, all human beings are equal. No one is smarter than the other but all of them are capable of achievement. See, it is completely natural for the human brain to sort information categorically. That is why when I drive down to work, for example, I know that the vehicle in front of me is a blue truck, and that the driver who is behind me is a White female. Based on that example, you are saying I am being both a racist and a sexist? While the different definitions prove so, a milisecond quick observation of the brain does not count as me being racist or sexist in the NEGATIVE sense. Understand? What else do you want me to think? "Oh there's a human being driving the car behind me and it might not have a penis" sounds pretty ridiculous right? While true when it comes down to the words, it is a waste of time to argue about this. You know why? Because racism has many definitions and ALL HUMANS FALL INTO ONE DEFINITION OR ANOTHER. You do make sense but you just simply choose the definition of racism that suits your rather needless argument. I never thought someone would argue about something this basic and hence my reasoning for my previous post. If you are trying to say that me and MWright are being racist in the "inferior/superior" sense, then you got the wrong people, buddy. Other than that, you must realize that some people are different...WAY too different and do not think the same way as most people. Unfortunately, we have too few of those people in this world. You do have a point but since your argument is based on the definition of a word that has many meanings, I would say this has resulted in nothing but the criminal waste of time. NOTE: And BTW, I can relate to a hundred different personal life experiences and beliefs of mine to prove I am not a racist in the negative sense. EDIT: Razor, there is a reason I do not favor religion and there is a reason I believe in humanity. There is a reason I have no "patriotism" to any country. Because I consider myself a part of humanity; a humanity without any boundaries with the only boundary being love. But such a beautiful world my eyes will never see due to the current mentality of people and the global prison system we live in.
Starbuzz wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 00:31 @Razor: You argue such useless points. What a waste of time. Of course in that sense everyone is a "racist" since any idiot knows that there are a thousand different definitions for the word "racist." Some of those definitions are negative and the rest just descriptive. The most common definition we see today is the "superior/inferior" definition. Not only is this the widespread definition of racism but it is also the most negative. No one wants to be associated with this definition but your generalizations are pretty absurd in that that is what you are trying to do. Instead of arguing that all people are racists (they ARE based on different definitions) these are the folks you should be arguing against. The racism definition that me and MWright fall under is our acknowledgement that human beings are different based solely on race. While by thinking that we are being racists, it is not in the negative sense and so there is no further need to carry on this useless triade of yours. Me and him believe that other than that purely PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE, all human beings are equal. No one is smarter than the other but all of them are capable of achievement. See, it is completely natural for the human brain to sort information categorically. That is why when I drive down to work, for example, I know that the vehicle in front of me is a blue truck, and that the driver who is behind me is a White female. Based on that example, you are saying I am being both a racist and a sexist? While the different definitions prove so, a milisecond quick observation of the brain does not count as me being racist or sexist in the NEGATIVE sense. Understand? What else do you want me to think? "Oh there's a human being driving the car behind me and it might not have a penis" sounds pretty ridiculous right? While true when it comes down to the words, it is a waste of time to argue about this. You know why? Because racism has many definitions and ALL HUMANS FALL INTO ONE DEFINITION OR ANOTHER. You do make sense but you just simply choose the definition of racism that suits your rather needless argument. I never thought someone would argue about something this basic and hence my reasoning for my previous post. If you are trying to say that me and MWright are being racist in the "inferior/superior" sense, then you got the wrong people, buddy. Other than that, you must realize that some people are different...WAY too different and do not think the same way as most people. Unfortunately, we have too few of those people in this world. You do have a point but since your argument is based on the definition of a word that has many meanings, I would say this has resulted in nothing but the criminal waste of time. NOTE: And BTW, I can relate to a hundred different personal life experiences and beliefs of mine to prove I am not a racist in the negative sense. EDIT: Razor, there is a reason I do not favor religion and there is a reason I believe in humanity. There is a reason I have no "patriotism" to any country. Because I consider myself a part of humanity; a humanity wihout any boundaries with the only boundary being love. But such a beautiful world my eyes will never see due to the current mentality of people and the global prison system we live in. I couldn't have said it any better myself. Kudo's to you my friend
Lol, took you long enough. But I was actually hoping for MWright to reply that. If you don't get what I mean, than let me explain it. You see, the way that I like to argue things is by picking ways that I can see something, which is, from what I can tell, completely different than what whoever I am talking to had in mind. Why do I do that? Well because allows whoever I'm talking to to be... lets say... less narrow minded. Think beyond the meaning of whatever the topic is because the world is not all black and white. .... and well more or less..... it is mad fun watching you guys squirm XD. --- Oh, btw, in case nobody realized yet, the thing I have been arguing that racism is, I have been using the definition of stereotypical in place of it. I'm actually pretty surprised nobody figured that out.. So Star, you are actually wrong. Right in the fact that you can look at a topic in any which direction and see a good angle in it, but wrong in the fact of the topic of this thread. I can go and quote things that I have said above to show you I'm not lying about what I am saying now, but only if you ask me to. Cause it is 2:50AM here and I need to get to sleep so I can wake up at 6... yea I know I'm cutting it close... ...I hate Mondays T_T ...
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 Lol, took you long enough. I cannot afford to be on the forums all day. 5-10 minutes every 5 hours is all I can muster. R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 You see, the way that I like to argue things is by picking ways that I can see something, which is, from what I can tell, completely different than what whoever I am talking to had in mind. Causing a totally UNNECESSARY confusion is stupid. Your explanation is pretty conceited since we all know that we are racists (according to their different definitions). R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 Why do I do that? Well because allows whoever I'm talking to to be confused as hell. Fixed. We all know what the different definitions of racist are but only 1 or 2 of them are used by the mainstream society. By doing what you are doing WITHOUT REFERENCING to those other definitons, you fool the person into thinking that he is be being called a racist in the NEGATIVE meaning. This is what you did with MWright. Instead of screwing around and wasting time and giving crap examples, you could have simply said that racism has many other meanings instead of saying vague things like: R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 22:49 I already said that I don't think any race is superior to another. Every race is equal. But by me thinking that, I am being racist! R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 22:49 Anyway, what I am saying is, one person cannot consider themselves as not a racist, because the very fact that they said that is racist. Then you felt the need to come back and say "narrow-minded." Not knowing something is not equal to being narrow-minded. Find another word. R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 .... and well more or less..... it is mad fun watching you guys squirm XD. Just what I thought. Immaturity at it's best. You lost all credibility with that mockery. R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 Oh, btw, in case nobody realized yet, the thing I have been arguing that racism is, I have been using the definition of stereotypical in place of it. I'm actually pretty surprised nobody figured that out.. I did but did not care to bring it up, Mr. Genius. R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 I can go and quote things that I have said above to show you I'm not lying about what I am saying now, but only if you ask me to. No thanks...nobody cares.
Win
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 13:59 Win I actually respect you R3, you actually admitted that he was won the argument. Most people just keep blabbering non-sensical stuff or ''But you said this-'' kind of stuff. Kudos
I think we've basically squeezed out all the flaming we can out of this subject. Plecos?
MWright967 wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 15:03 R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 13:59 Win I actually respect you R3, you actually admitted that he was won the argument. Most people just keep blabbering non-sensical stuff or ''But you said this-'' kind of stuff. Kudos Yes, thank you for that. Dover wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 15:05 I think we've basically squeezed out all the flaming we can out of this subject. Plecos? Yes, that was the reason why I did what I did. People take this forum way to seriously for my tastes. That is why I make these odd stress tests that we can all laugh about later.
R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 14:10 MWright967 wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 15:03 R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 13:59 Win I actually respect you R3, you actually admitted that he was won the argument. Most people just keep blabbering non-sensical stuff or ''But you said this-'' kind of stuff. Kudos Yes, thank you for that. Dover wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 15:05 I think we've basically squeezed out all the flaming we can out of this subject. Plecos? Yes, that was the reason why I did what I did. People take this forum way to seriously for my tastes. That is why I make these odd stress tests that we can all laugh about later.
MWright967 wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 00:07 [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 23:03] Quote: Actually my witty little friend, its been statistically proven that 78% or more of Muslims in the Middle East ARE affiliated with Al Queada. Also, I think you fail to see THE POINT OF THE POST. I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists. I'm saying, we have a constant eye out for Muslims. We dislike them, and treat them like crap, for better or for worse. We are waging war with MUSLIMS. Terrorists or non-terrorists. So please, spare us your ''witt'' and try not to make anymore of a fool out of yourself than you already have. Probably the most ignorant post I've seen in this thread... 78% or more Muslims in the Mid East affiliated with Al Qaeda? 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, wouldn't that mean that Al Qaeda has over a billion affiliates? Half the people at my school are middle eastern, I don't know a single one who supports Al Qaeda, let alone is affiliated with it. I said in the MIDDLE EAST. Are you in the middle east? Because if so, and none of them support al queada, I would know you'de be...Uh...Lying. Do you have any idea how many people live in the middle east? Population: Egypt: 80 million Syria: 19 million Jordan: 6 million West Bank: 1.4 million Gaza Strip: 1.4 million Lebanon: 4 million Iraq: 27 million Saudi Arabia: 27 million Qatar: 900,000 Kuwait: 2.5 million Bahrain: 7 million United Arab Emirates: 4 million Libya: 6 million Turkey: 71 million Iran: 65 million Total = 295,200,000 People Divide by 100, multiplied by 78 (your claim of "78%") 230,256,000 affiliates in Al Qaeda, according to your logic Apparently Al Qaeda in your logic is bigger than all the world's superpowers combined Al Qaeda 's base of support isn't even in the Middle East; it's in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are both not even in the Mid East. Sure there are some Al Qaeda in Iraq, but they're not even the biggest group there. Again, I know many of Middle Easterners and Muslims in general who go to my school, and not a single one supports Al Qaeda, related groups, or terrorism in general. Saying Muslims are the enemy of America is just like saying the Jews were the enemy of Nazi Germany.
I can't agree with that statistic of 78% of Muslims supporting al-Qaeda. Many Muslims are upset with how their region has been literally screwed up by Western powers such as Britain, France, and America, who treated their people like shit; but supporting a group that has no qualms about killing other Muslims, simply runs against all logic. There are other popular organizations, such as the Muslims Brotherhood that are (were) quite a bit more moderate, and so they'll easily have more support than al-Qaeda. Plus, al-Qaeda opposes Capitalism, western ways of business, and pretty much every form of "excess" and entertainment. If 78% of Muslims supported al-Qaeda, how come Dubai hasn't been torn to shreds yet? Not to be a dick, but I've spent a chunk of my life studying the Middle East, even before the towers fell, and it's even a course of my studies, so I have to say that you might want to recheck those figures, eh?
nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 19:01 Plus, al-Qaeda opposes Capitalism, western ways of business, and pretty much every form of "excess" and entertainment. If 78% of Muslims supported al-Qaeda, how come Dubai hasn't been torn to shreds yet? I can see it now. "Wtf r Dubai?"
NEFobbyGEN Apparently Al Qaeda in your logic is bigger than all the world's superpowers combined Not trying to nitpick, but you do realize that America is a world superpower, right? If so, how can even 100% of the "Middle East" be larger than all of the world's superpowers when America's population is over 300,000,000?
Not everyone in the U.S is affiliated with the U.S army, he's saying 78% of the Middle East is affiliated with Al Qaeda. Affiliated doesn't just mean support, it means being a part of. It seems that people are forgetting that some of the richest, most capitalized cities in the world exist in the Middle East.
What's the percentage of tax payers in America? They give money to the military through taxes. I'm sure that if the number isn't greater than his fake number, then I'm sure the other superpowers' number of taxpayers pushes the total over. Honestly, I just wish we had a non-interventionist view on politics. I don't think we should be push-overs, but starting wars to preventing wars is, well... like fucking for virginity.
cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 12:43 What's the percentage of tax payers in America? They give money to the military through taxes. I'm sure that if the number isn't greater than his fake number, then I'm sure the other superpowers' number of taxpayers pushes the total over. [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 12:35]Affiliated doesn't just mean support, it means being a part of. Amount of taxpayers is irrelevent. He means people who are actually members of a branch of the military. Not merely "supporting" it through taxes. LERN2ENGLISH
Well, as far as I'm concerned, being an American is pretty much an affiliation with the military. Either way, this detracts from the whole conversation. Suggesting that a vast majority of Muslims are out to get America is an absurd idea. If we didn't meddle in their affairs, maybe they wouldn't have any reasons to bitch.
I'm registered for the draft. Therefore, I'm affiliated with the military. Just because you haven't been recruited yet doesn't mean you can't, and won't, fight if need be.
Dover wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 15:49 Amount of taxpayers is irrelevent. He means people who are actually members of a branch of the military. Not merely "supporting" it through taxes. Paying taxes makes you a candidate for draft. They can call you into service when a draft is issued. So technically you are affiliated with the military.
Actually, no, I don't feel like taking part in a flamefest. (Deleted.)
MWright967 wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 14:28 Let me settle this argument: The US is not ready for a BLACK MUSLIM as their president. We're waring with MUSLIMS right now, and if anyone hasn't already noticed....Blacks aren't exactly the most respected group in America, or on the world scale for that matter. Picking him to be our president would mean 2 things: 1, We'd be total hypocrits. We go over to start a war with muslims, then elect one as our president. Fishy, huh? 1. Barack Obama is not a Muslim. He is a Christian. His father was a Muslim and that probably influenced him as a kid somewhat, but once he was old enough to make his own choices, that's all that should really matter. 2. There is no war against Islam, it's a war against Islamic extremism. Saddam Hussein was not an Islamic extremist. MWright967 wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 14:28 Obama isn't going to win. He CAN'T win. Don't you understand why he was put in the election? To make it seem like Blacks and Muslims, America's two most hated minorities, are becoming more ''equal'', not that he would actually WIN. Again, he's not a Muslim. As for being black, he cannot win an election simply because some committee decided they want a black President. What's more, out of the large number of PEOPLE who approve of Obama, I don't think too many of them are doing it simply on the basis that he's black. I like the guy more than any other candidate except Ron Paul, but race was never a consideration for me. For you, it was apparently the ONLY consideration... and you are telling me racism isn't over?
Ah. Well, my family pays taxes, and I'm of voting age (18), and I'm not regestered for the draft. I guess it's one of the perks of not being a citizen.
Obama is a Muslim. And let me ask you this Spoony. Would you want a prime minister that wouldn't put his hand on his heart and say what ever you say when you pledge alliegence to your country? If no, they why do you think we would? Obama is frikin running for president, if I was democrat and even if I didn't like her, I would vote for Clinton, because even though she is pretty bad, I wouldn't want a guy that doesn't even pledge alliegence to our flag to be president. He just stood there with his hands folded in front and didn't say anything.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 20:46 Obama is a Muslim. No, he's not. Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 20:46 And let me ask you this Spoony. Would you want a prime minister that wouldn't put his hand on his heart and say what ever you say when you pledge alliegence to your country? If no, they why do you think we would? Obama is frikin running for president, if I was democrat and even if I didn't like her, I would vote for Clinton, because even though she is pretty bad, I wouldn't want a guy that doesn't even pledge alliegence to our flag to be president. He just stood there with his hands folded in front and didn't say anything. The word "trivial" springs to mind here. Where his hands are doesn't mean shit, you don't know what he was thinking at the time. As for the Prime Minister question, well, there isn't really a pledge of allegiance tbh, but if there was, the position of the Prime Minister's hands at the time would mean absolutely nothing to me. finally, Quote: I wouldn't want a guy that doesn't even pledge alliegence to our flag that's like saying that praying is only praying if it's done exactly according to the "official" way (which, according to Jesus in the Bible, certainly doesn't involve churches)