If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
Originally posted by aeon@May 13 2004, 09:02 PM ...and this changes the fact that a group of camel jockey's are responsible for killing him in what way?
Fuckin' more liberal idiocy - blame everyone and everything cept the person(s) responsible. A philosophy of total irresponsibility, denial and excuses.
I don't think anyone is implying that it changes anything. Surely they're just raising the question about whether or not the two situations are related? It's entirely possible.
And how is it liberal idiocy to report the news of a rather unlikely and interesting coincidence?
Originally posted by Mike AI@May 15 2004, 04:44 PM
Terrorists CANNOT defeat us, only our lack of will to see things through can defeat us.
Right now, it looks like we are waivering.
The US has become a soft, fat, lazy, push over country. We can defeat any army in the field, but we cannot burden combat that is messy, and lasts more then a few months. This is very troubling to me....
all the precursors of Rome's collapse,
the signs on the wall are there
;-((((
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@May 15 2004, 06:12 PM Hey aeon, how much of the world have you seen?
I want to know how much experience you have of life outside the USA?
Joe,
I lived in 4 countries:
USSR, Austria, Italy, USA
and when I say LIVE,
I meant I had to work and make a living, unlike tourists don't have to worry about.
How many countries besides Australia you TRULY lived in?
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@May 17 2004, 07:10 AM
Besides Serge, I'm much younger than you. I can only imagine the places I will have seen by the time I'm your age.
How much of the world had you seen at 34?
Joe, sorry to rain on your parade, but your are NOT MUCH YOUNGER than me,
you are only 13 years younger
;-)))
by 34 I've seen:
USSR and 7 of it's satelite republics, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Italy, Israel, Canada and few islands, and 28 states in the Union, not much.
The only excuse I had was:
I was 22 years old when I came and finding myself/proper work/business was very high on my agenda, I didn't have the bank acount or back pack to rely upon. Me and my shadow were my only earthly posessions.
Don't get me wrong, I do not play down your experiences,
just pointing out the obvious:
I am in MUCH better shape to throw stones at those who never left their counties,
and I chose not to. If you think about for a second,
Hieronymous Bosch NEVER left his VILLAGE,
and did it stop HIS creativity?
I wish ALL of us had 1/100 of the vision of the world he did. So far,
only Liberals and Bush haters see the world with Bosch's eyes
;-))
and 100%, not 1/100th
;-))
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@May 17 2004, 04:23 AM If you think about for a second,
Hieronymous Bosch NEVER left his VILLAGE,
and did it stop HIS creativity?
Sure it didn't stop his creativity but creativity is not something you learn, it is something that is in you from birth.
He may have been a great artist but that doesn't mean he was necessarily intelligent, sophisticated or interesting. If he never left his village he was probably pretty dull. I've always found the most uninteresting people are the ones who never travel.
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@May 15 2004, 03:12 PM Hey aeon, how much of the world have you seen?
I want to know how much experience you have of life outside the USA?
Considering what you've posted - prolly not nearly as well as you. The places I've been in Europe are essentially US travel resorts & I don't consider South American resorts to be "seeing the world". I'm not a big fan of leisure traveling anyway. I'm still in the "work" mode of life and don't really like taking the time nor energy - I have other more important goals at the moment.
That has little to no bearing on the fact I never said I blame liberals or any of my points questioning your positions. I don't care about understanding other cultures, anymore than they care about me. The notion that experiencing other cultures would in someway change my positions of innate cynicism is presumptive at best.
The track is open here and the weather is finally nice/dry enough for some good practice runs, so replies will either be stoned drunk or not at all for the next few days.
Joe didn't mention anything about that until later in the thread. Your reply was either directed at the article, or at Serge or Joe's posts (the only other replies in the thread before yours).
Serge: "looks like coinsedence to me... "
Joe: " Coincidence? ahaahahahahaaha! Yeah, right! I'm going to give away my email address to someone and see if it ends up being used by Osama Bin Laden."
Serge thinks it looks like coincidence. Joe disagrees.
You: "...and this changes the fact that a group of camel jockey's are responsible for killing him in what way? Fuckin' more liberal idiocy - blame everyone and everything cept the person(s) responsible. A philosophy of total irresponsibility, denial and excuses."
So where exactly did anyone suggest it changes anything about who was responsible? And where is the liberal idiocy. If you'd be so kind as to point it out for me.
Originally posted by chodadog@May 17 2004, 06:24 AM Joe didn't mention anything about that until later in the thread. Your reply was either directed at the article, or at Serge or Joe's posts (the only other replies in the thread before yours).
Serge: "looks like coinsedence to me... "
Joe: " Coincidence? ahaahahahahaaha! Yeah, right! I'm going to give away my email address to someone and see if it ends up being used by Osama Bin Laden."
Serge thinks it looks like coincidence. Joe disagrees.
You: "...and this changes the fact that a group of camel jockey's are responsible for killing him in what way? Fuckin' more liberal idiocy - blame everyone and everything cept the person(s) responsible. A philosophy of total irresponsibility, denial and excuses."
So where exactly did anyone suggest it changes anything about who was responsible? And where is the liberal idiocy. If you'd be so kind as to point it out for me.
Quote:
Bush is responsible for every death in this war, on both sides.
And that's the bottom line.
Do you actually know what a universal statement is? It's an absolutely unjustifiable assertion of faith...no different than religious mandates.
and always remember to:
Universal statements are innately flawed...the logic of followers looking for the easy way to understand something - when someone tells you "every/all/never/always" those are called universals...and just like the faithful, they assume and prescribe devoid consistant justification. Universals imply absolute validity, particulars imply a potential level of soundness - two different criteria.
Remember, the automechanic that talks about things I could never understand, the electrician, the carpenter, the guy working in a factory are all sheep...because they dont' see the "truth" of the universal's like the "enlightened" do...
If you don't agree with "christianity" you're evil and unsaved...you don't agree with a political doctrine created by someone else that people follow...you're a sheep too...just like I "have to" blame liberals and support bush - I didn't assert the universal...just pointed it out - but by doing so...I'm not "enlightened" and I don't care to be...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who think they are free."
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
You completely avoided my question. I'll point out again that Joe hadn't said that until after your first reply. It's just that you strike me as the kind of person that loves to fling around political terms, but it seems like you don't understand them.
What was your statement in reply to? Again, where was the liberal idiocy?
The idiocy is the implied assumption a coincidence is something more than that as was so clearly shown by certain responses.
Because there's some remote connection that doesn't change the fact that those "sand niggers/camel jockeys/freedom fighters/resistence fighthers"...took a human being who wasn't in a uniform, didn't shoot at them, used a knife and sawed his head off. That is no one's fault but their own.
Baiting some idealogue into a losing debate doesn't change that fact. I've answered you're question by the actual piss match...you should read and re-read it. Because someone responded like an idiot to the "bait" isn't my fault - nor is every death in Iraq Bush's fault...check out the point about liberals responding like robots...and calling a person who openly claims themself a liberal isn't slinging terms in the least. Now it's time for you to use the 1300 or so cc's of space between yers ears.
Originally posted by aeon@May 17 2004, 05:32 PM The idiocy is the implied assumption a coincidence is something more than that as was so clearly shown by certain responses.
Because there's some remote connection that doesn't change the fact that those "sand niggers/camel jockeys/freedom fighters/resistence fighthers"...took a human being who wasn't in a uniform, didn't shoot at them, used a knife and sawed his head off. That is no one's fault but their own.
Baiting some idealogue into a losing debate doesn't change that fact. I've answered you're question by the actual piss match...you should read and re-read it. Because someone responded like an idiot to the "bait" isn't my fault - nor is every death in Iraq Bush's fault...check out the point about liberals responding like robots...and calling a person who openly claims themself a liberal isn't slinging terms in the least. Now it's time for you to use the 1300 or so cc's of space between yers ears.
Uhh, so you completely rule out the possibility that it is more than a coincidence? Isn't that a little narrow minded? What if he was co-operating with Zacarias Moussaoui and he was killed by AQ because they thought he had spilled the beans after being detained?
Did I say that - just like did I say the war in Iraq was the liberal's fault ? I said a coincidence is just a coincidence...until there's something to show it's more. I didn't imply it meant anything other than that - other's did.
Coincidence isn't causation nor is it correlation.
and even assuming you're "conspiracy"...how does that change the fact that those individuals killed him?
So, discussing the possibility that it's more than a coincidence is liberal idiocy? I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you called liberal idiocty. Was it the article, or was it Joe's first reply, and why?
Originally posted by chodadog@May 17 2004, 06:19 PM So, discussing the possibility that it's more than a coincidence is liberal idiocy? I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you called liberal idiocty. Was it the article, or was it Joe's first reply, and why?
No you're not. I've already made it clear...
Trying to look for reasons to shift the blame from the murderer that severed the guy's head is the liberal idiocy. It's looking for reason's to not realize it was murder and somehow "caused"...which is why it's so easy to bait some people - it is no one else's responsibility...the coincidence is just fodder for conspiratorial minds. Just like the religious who think a person was healed after they "pray". But shit...some terrorist that had access to his university had his password - prolly half the people in the computer science's department at my school had my password - they hacked for fun...it could be he was on bin laden's payroll...or mossad...or CIA, or IRA - hell even delta force, an overweight navy seal, he could have been jordanian intelligence - could be's...I "could" win the lottery tomorrow...
George Bush didn't kill that man...unless he speaks arabic. That's the point as well as looking for any coincidence to prove an agenda or platform is wrong. That's called propoganda.
BTW - go look at "white identity/racialists" forums...you'll see all kinds of "coincidences" when a Jewish or black prosecutor pursues one of their fellow believers for breaking the law...but of course - that "coincidence" is absurd...but this isn't.
05-15-2004
Linear Mode
