or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Official AppleInsider Political Affiliation Poll
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official AppleInsider Political Affiliation Poll - Page 4

post #121 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>
And? They didn't conquer it in the name of Christianity. What's your point?</strong>

The point is that they conquered it. The Arabs and the Turks didn't conquer Europe in name of the Islam either. They conquered it in name of their own Empire. The Islam was the main religion in that part of the world way before the Romans decided to become Christian. They were a bunch of pagans like the rest of us at first.

Anyways, the main point is that they conquered it and forced their religion down those people's throat. They took it, the Arabs took it back, the crusaders tried to take it but failed. You make it sound like western civilizations have some sort of God given right to that area.

<strong>And it's a silly point to think that the President or a Presidential candidate should know the names of all the heads of state. I'm not the one who brought this subject up.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No it's not. These are the people that he is supposed to work together with to make this world less of a shitehole than it is at the moment. Maybe if he did know their names he could talk to them rather than bomb them as soon as they don't jump when he tells them to.

The western world has never done anything for the Muslims in the middle east. So why should they help us or feel sorry for us? In the last two decades our politics have been to hate and despise everything we don't understand and bomb it if it doesn't change.

The Islam is not to blame for people like Bin Laden or Sadam Hussein. Communism wasn't to blame for the KGB or Stalin. So maybe we should get our facts straigth.

For the record, I'm a catholic and an Irish republican. I just don't believe in condemning everything that's different. Being what I am works for me, it doesn't work for everyone and that's why it's a good thing that there are other options.

Just because bad things have happened in the name of the Islam doesn't make everyone who believes in it a rotten apple.

I think I'm done now....
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #122 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
The Islam was the main religion in that part of the world way before the Romans decided to become Christian.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How do you figure that? Mohammed wasn't even born until 570. There's no way Islam could have been there first.

I don't have time for more right now. I'll write more later.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #123 of 178
Whatever happened to naim?
Chicanery.
Reply
Chicanery.
Reply
post #124 of 178
I heard someone say he was hiding under his bed sobbing while writing out a hit list.
Don't remember who said it though.

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: MacAgent ]</p>
post #125 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

No it's not. These are the people that he is supposed to work together with to make this world less of a shitehole than it is at the moment. Maybe if he did know their names he could talk to them rather than bomb them as soon as they don't jump when he tells them to.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

There are something like a hundred and twenty different nations in the world, more or less. Each of them has a head of state and a foreign minister. I could see concern if a candidate didn't know the name of the British Prime Minister or the President of Mexico, but the President of Uzbekistan? You can be assured he does *now*, and it matters *now*.

[quote]
<strong>
The western world has never done anything for the Muslims in the middle east. So why should they help us or feel sorry for us?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

We saved Islam in Afghanistan from eradication at the hands of the Soviets.

We saved Egypt, Syria, and Turkey from Nazi conquest.

We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraqi conquest.
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #126 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>

We saved Islam in Afghanistan from eradication at the hands of the Soviets.

We saved Egypt, Syria, and Turkey from Nazi conquest.

We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Iraqi conquest.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Excuse me? You saved Islam in Afghanistan? What did you do? Send Rambo over?

You're going to have to explain to me how you saved Saudi Arabia but as far as Kuwait goes you know as well as I do that that was about one thing. Oil.

These countries may have been run over but that doesn't mean Islam would have died with it. A religion is in people's head. It's a belief. You don't make people give that up. That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Here we have a political affiliation poll and some people still feel urged to argue. If someone would come on here and say that he was a Facist or a right wing extremist I may not agree, but that's not the point of this thread.

And as far as Nazi Germany goes, define "We". Because if it means America, you wouldn' even have gotten involved had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbour. If it means the western world, I bet you, had Hitler only occupied countries that were not important to the British, nothing would have happened.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #127 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

How do you figure that? Mohammed wasn't even born until 570. There's no way Islam could have been there first.

I don't have time for more right now. I'll write more later.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So what? Jesus wasn't born until 0. So there was no one God in Judea before then? Old Testament, New Testament.....

Mohammed is their prophet, Allah is their God.

Anyway, you're main point was that the crusades were about getting something back that was taken quite a few centuries earlier. I pointed out to you that the Romans took it aswell so how can you justify taking something back that was unlawfully taken in the first place. How far back in history are you prepared to go?

So stick to your point. What it all comes down to is that when we were all cavemen there were no countries as we know them today. I bet there were territories though and fears and believes (that's what religion is in the end anyway). Maybe we should find out what the situation was then and go back to that?

<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #128 of 178
One final point. A lot of things have happened in the name of good things. Bin Laden commits his crimes in the name of Islam, innocent people were murdered in Omagh in the name of reuniting my country. Atom bombs were dropped on Japan in the name of freedom and protestants were burned to death in the name of Catholicism.

That doesn't make these good things bad. It makes the people that hide behind them to try and justify their crimes bad.

So rather than discussing who is wrong or right, you should try discussing what can be done to understand each other better. What can be done to accept our differences. Maybe then people like Bin Laden won't get a chance to do what they do in future.

What you can tell me though is how you explain the difference between what happened in New York and what is happening in Afghanistan at the moment without using the words right, wrong or justified.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #129 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
So what? Jesus wasn't born until 0. So there was no one God in Judea before then? Old Testament, New Testament..... </strong><hr></blockquote>

I made no claim that Christianity was the first religion of this region only that it was there before Islam which it was. You can't say anything that refutes this so I'm not sure what your point is.

[quote]<strong>Anyway, you're main point was that the crusades were about getting something back that was taken quite a few centuries earlier. I pointed out to you that the Romans took it aswell so how can you justify taking something back that was unlawfully taken in the first place. </strong><hr></blockquote>

According to you but based on what? As ColorClassicG4 pointed out, the Romans came to rule this region because the last king of Bythnia bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. (Read ColorClassicG4's post on page 3 for the rest of the details.) That's as legitimate a transfer of power as you're going to get for that time in history.

[quote]<strong>So stick to your point. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, it would probably be better to not bother with the bizarre tangents you've wandered along. As to my point, my first post addressing this matter was in response to a post that said that the Crusades were an obscene intrusion into the world of Islam. Since Christianity predated Islam in this region that complaint doesn't make any sense.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #130 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

Yes, it would probably be better to not bother with the bizarre tangents you've wandered along. As to my point, my first post addressing this matter was in response to a post that said that the Crusades were an obscene intrusion into the world of Islam. Since Christianity predated Islam in this region that complaint doesn't make any sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The region being handed over to the Romans has nothing to do with the religion being forced down those people's throat. What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that Europe was mainly Catholic because everyone that came out and refused that faith got burnt or stoned to death.

You should learn to see religion, countries and their leaders and politics as different things.

Religions don't kill anyone. People do. Religions may influence politics but no muslim state hates the U.S for not being Muslim. They hate you because they see you as the main supporters of Israel.

Israel. A travesty on it's own. Not the country, the way it came about. After WWII the powers that were decided that the Jews needed their own country. Britain said, hey we have a piece of land in the Middle East and since the Israeli's said it was given to them by God in the first place, they got it.

Given to them by God. The promised land. So, we decided to take people's land because God supposedly said so? Their God says it's not true. So whose God is right?

I think you have a very good roll in this discussion though. You show, what the majority of the people on this planet have become to believe. You embody why people justify western politics. Your points are backed up by one fact. We are right and they are wrong. A lot of them feel that way too but vice versa. And the war rumbles on...
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #131 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

Excuse me? You saved Islam in Afghanistan? What did you do? Send Rambo over?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

We supplied the Afghan guerilla fighters with money and munitions, most significantly Stinger missiles to destroy low-flying aircraft.

As a result of this assistance the Afghans were able to defeat and drive out the Soviets. The aim of the Soviets in conquering Afghanistan was to remove the threat of militant Islam from their southern frontier. They attempted to do this by establishing a Marxist regime in Afghanistan and by implementing their official policy of atheism.

Permit me to editorialize that I am not surprised somebody who thinks that Islam predates Christianity is ignorant of Afghanistan's past history.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
You're going to have to explain to me how you saved Saudi Arabia but as far as Kuwait goes you know as well as I do that that was about one thing. Oil.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I do not dispute the idea that the war was "about oil". (Is this for some reason a bad idea for a war?) You will note however that such an idea does not preclude the concept that we did something nice for the Muslims in the Middle East as a result.

We saved Saudi Arabia, of course, by interposing a massive army between Iraq and it, and by destroying the Iraqi army massed at its border.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
And as far as Nazi Germany goes, define "We"... If it means the western world, I bet you, had Hitler only occupied countries that were not important to the British, nothing would have happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think it is a fair bet to say that by the time of the Second World War, there were no "countries" which were "not important to the British".

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</p>
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #132 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

The region being handed over to the Romans has nothing to do with the religion being forced down those people's throat. What you're saying makes as much sense as saying that Europe was mainly Catholic because everyone that came out and refused that faith got burnt or stoned to death.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, the Romans were a model of religious tolerance... except for when it came to Christians. When Christianity was finally legalized, the imperial didn't "force it down" anyone's throat by making it the official religion until the point at which nearly everyone had converted anyway; even at that point they didn't ban the pagan religions until much, much later.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
You should learn to see religion, countries and their leaders and politics as different things.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Virtually none of the Islamic countries you so esteem do. The noteworthy exception is Turkey.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
Religions don't kill anyone. People do. Religions may influence politics but no muslim state hates the U.S for not being Muslim.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The thing which drove Bin Laden to make war on the United States, as he said, was his outrage at the presence of Christian soldiers in Saudi Arabia (and, correspondingly, near to Mecca).

What amuses me is that macoracle is unfazed by the fact that virtually none of his facts are correct.
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #133 of 178
USA
Republican
post #134 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
You should learn to see religion, countries and their leaders and politics as different things. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Thank you for the little anachronistic lesson. How I see things has nothing to do with how things were seen by the players themselves. Religion and politics were not safely compartmentalized by the Crusaders nor the Muslim military leaders who invaded Europe and who eventually overthrew the Eastern Empire. Yes, religions don't kill anyone. But just because someone corrupts the meaning of their faith that doesn't mean that person doesn't believe he is acting in the name of God. To pretend that motivation doesn't exist isn't very useful.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #135 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>

I think it is a fair bet to say that by the time of the Second World War, there were no "countries" which were "not important to the British".

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

In reply to this and your entire post it comes in, sending over guns and bombs didn't save Afghanistan. It's people's willingness to die for what they believe in did. So you saved sweet nothing.

If you want countries not important to the British I suggest you look at Austria, Sudetenland and after that Tsjechoslovakia.

As far as Kuwait goes. In stead of telling me how you were so wonderful to liberate it you could be realistic and tell me that if it hadn't been for oil you would have let them burn. We were all on Iraq's side when they were attacking Iran weren't we? Talk about hypocrite.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #136 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>

The thing which drove Bin Laden to make war on the United States, as he said, was his outrage at the presence of Christian soldiers in Saudi Arabia (and, correspondingly, near to Mecca).

What amuses me is that macoracle is unfazed by the fact that virtually none of his facts are correct.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So who made war on the United States? Bin Laden? or Islam? Thanks for reiterating my point.

So the Romans were very tolerant when it comes down to religion? People converted on their own behalf? Maybe in Rome they did but you can't honestly believe that people in Judea, Belgica etc decided to just drop their beliefs and decided to become Christians? Now you're going to tell me that the native Americans willingly gave up their land because we gave them mirrors in return.

"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #137 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
As far as Kuwait goes. In stead of telling me how you were so wonderful to liberate it you could be realistic and tell me that if it hadn't been for oil you would have let them burn. </strong><hr></blockquote>

As in Kosovo. Lot of self interest for us in that one too, right? But yes, oil was certainly a factor and we liberated Kuwait from a really bad guy.

[quote]<strong>We were all on Iraq's side when they were attacking Iran weren't we? Talk about hypocrite.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, we helped both sides. Iraq was a Soviet friend. Iran didn't like us. When one bad guy is attacking another bad guy try do nothing to discourage them.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #138 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

Thank you for the little anachronistic lesson. How I see things has nothing to do with how things were seen by the players themselves. Religion and politics were not safely compartmentalized by the Crusaders nor the Muslim military leaders who invaded Europe and who eventually overthrew the Eastern Empire. Yes, religions don't kill anyone. But just because someone corrupts the meaning of their faith that doesn't mean that person doesn't believe he is acting in the name of God. To pretend that motivation doesn't exist isn't very useful.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Now we're talking. A fair point.

There is a difference though, between saying that religion is the driving force for some people to act the way they do and to say that a religion is wrong just because some people act violently in name of it.

I concede that the people who flew those planes in to the WTC and the Pentagon were acting on their conviction that it would take them to their heaven. That still doesn't make everyone who believes in the same thing as bad as they are though.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #139 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

In reply to this and your entire post it comes in, sending over guns and bombs didn't save Afghanistan. It's people's willingness to die for what they believe in did. So you saved sweet nothing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

There are any number of wars which were lost by people who were willing to die for what they believed in, but who didn't have any guns or bombs.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
As far as Kuwait goes. In stead of telling me how you were so wonderful to liberate it you could be realistic and tell me that if it hadn't been for oil you would have let them burn.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I never said that our motivations were otherwise. It was you who said that the West had never given Muslims in the Middle East any benefit whatsoever. As I said above, I am not arguing that doing so was our primary motivation in the Gulf War. I am merely saying that it was an effect.
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #140 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>

So who made war on the United States? Bin Laden? or Islam? Thanks for reiterating my point.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Apparently the 'he was outraged about the defiling of Mecca' bit was wee bit difficult to grasp. To reiterate: motivated by religion, he attacked the United States.

[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
So the Romans were very tolerant when it comes down to religion? People converted on their own behalf? Maybe in Rome they did but you can't honestly believe that people in Judea, Belgica etc decided to just drop their beliefs and decided to become Christians?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

The conversion of people in Judea, at least, is actually described in the New Testament. Given that the Christians must necessarily have been a minority at first, how do you suppose they would have been able to convert anyone by force?

As for Belgica, yes, persons in the Roman provinces were quite willing to convert to Christianity, especially under the later Empire. There's hardly room here, however, for a history of early Christianity. Suffice to say, however, that people at the time who converted considered Christianity preferable to either a) the mystery cults then popular or b) the mouldering remains of the state paganism.

It is odd that much of your rebuttal typically consists of statements that certain facts can't possibly be true. Have you ever considered whether you might simply be wrong?

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: ColorClassicG4 ]</p>
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #141 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
I concede that the people who flew those planes in to the WTC and the Pentagon were acting on their conviction that it would take them to their heaven. That still doesn't make everyone who believes in the same thing as bad as they are though.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not sure where you got the impression that I thought that way. I don't.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #142 of 178
Interesting, that...we fought in Iraq and Kuwait because of oil...that's far more done than any other country that leeches oil from the region. What has the UN done...what has the the rest of the world done to maintain a global economy that is powered by fossil fuels?
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #143 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>Interesting, that...we fought in Iraq and Kuwait because of oil...that's far more done than any other country that leeches oil from the region. What has the UN done...what has the the rest of the world done to maintain a global economy that is powered by fossil fuels?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, there were of course the other nations involved in the Gulf War Coalition.

Japan tried a novel solution: simply conquering the relevant oil-bearing territories. They figured we might object, though, so they took the cautious step of destroying our fleet first.
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
This is not 38, this is old 97!
Reply
post #144 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>Interesting, that...we fought in Iraq and Kuwait because of oil...that's far more done than any other country that leeches oil from the region. What has the UN done...what has the the rest of the world done to maintain a global economy that is powered by fossil fuels?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Point being that "we" did it for ourselves and not for the people of Kuwait. If "we" had done it for the people we wouldn't have left the Kurds and Shi'ites to be massacred after "we" incited them to revolt.

It's doing something for purely selfish reasons and then call it doing someone a favour.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #145 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:
<strong>
To reiterate: motivated by religion, he attacked the United States.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

So HE attacked the United States? Not Islam the religion? So HE did a bad thing? Not Islam the religion. So HE is at fault? Not Islam the religion?

Or are you trying to say that when "we" do something in name of religion (the crusades) that doesn't make the religion bad. However, when someone else does something in name of a different religion it does make that religion bad?
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #146 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
Point being that "we" did it for ourselves and not for the people of Kuwait. If "we" had done it for the people we wouldn't have left the Kurds and Shi'ites to be massacred after "we" incited them to revolt.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What are you talking about? The Kurds and the Shi'ites are not the people of Kuwait. Different situation, different issues. We were still wrong but that doesn't mean we didn't liberate the people of Kuwait. We did that much at least. There's no denying it.

[quote]<strong>It's doing something for purely selfish reasons and then call it doing someone a favour.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Or maybe it's always putting the worst possible face on the actions of others in order to claim moral superiority.

[quote]Originally posted by ColorClassicG4:

To reiterate: motivated by religion, he attacked the United States.


<strong>So HE attacked the United States? Not Islam the religion? So HE did a bad thing? Not Islam the religion. So HE is at fault? Not Islam the religion?

Or are you trying to say that when "we" do something in name of religion (the crusades) that doesn't make the religion bad. However, when someone else does something in name of a different religion it does make that religion bad?</strong><hr></blockquote>

We'd have something to talk about if you were even half as critical of your own assumptions as you are of everyone else's.

[ 11-20-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #147 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
It's doing something for purely selfish reasons and then call it doing someone a favour.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You say that like it's a bad thing?
post #148 of 178
(A little off topic here.)

An interesting fact:

The International Red Cross estimates that the US bombing of Iraq was responsible (directly or indirectly) for 142,000 civilian casualties.

That is very close to the total of immediate deaths in Hiroshima & Nagasaki combined, though admittedly the casualty number in Japan grew due to radiation poisoning, etc. over time.
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
post #149 of 178
California (we really don't need the rest of you )
liberal democrat
ooo I stole this republican joke from a website:
You Might Be A Republican If...
Author: Unknown
Submitted by Unknown on 06-20-2001
Suitability: PG-13
Genre: Shortie, Rating: 2.05

You think "proletariat" is a type of cheese.

You've named your kids "Deduction one" and "Deduction two"

You've tried to argue that poverty could be abolished if people
were just allowed to keep more of their minimum wage.

You've ever referred to someone as "my (insert racial or ethnic
minority here) friend"

You've ever tried to prove Jesus was a capitalist and opposed to
welfare.

You're a pro-lifer, but support the death penalty.

You think Huey Newton is a cookie.

The only union you support is the Baseball Players, because heck,
they're richer than you.

You think you might remember laughing once as a kid.

You once broke loose at a party and removed your neck tie.

You call mall rent-a-cops "jack-booted thugs."

You've ever referred to the moral fiber of something.

You've ever uttered the phrase, "Why don't we just bomb the sons
of bitches."

You've ever said, "I can't wait to get into business school."

You've ever called a secretary or waitress "Tootsie."

You answer to "The Man."

You don't think "The Simpsons" is all that funny, but you watch
it because that Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense.

You fax the FBI a list of "Commies in my Neighborhood."

You don't let your kids watch Sesame Street because you accuse
Bert and Ernie of "sexual deviance."

You scream "Dit-dit-ditto" while making love.

You've argued that art has a "moral foundation set in Western
values."

When people say "Marx," you think "Groucho."

You've ever yelled, "Hey hippie, get a haircut."

You think Birkenstock was that radical rock concert in 1969.

You argue that you need 300 handguns, in case a bear ever attacks
your home.

Vietnam makes a lot of sense to you.

You point to Hootie and the Blowfish as evidence of the end of
racism in America.

You've ever said civil liberties, schmivil schmiberties.

You've ever said "Clean air? Looks clean to me."

You've ever called education a luxury.

You look down through a glass ceiling and chuckle.

You wonder if donations to the Pentagon are tax-deductable.

You came of age in the '60s and don't remember Bob Dylan.

You own a vehicle with an "Ollie North: American Hero" sticker.

You're afraid of the liberal media."

You ever based an argument on the phrase, "Well, tradition
dictates...."

You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch "lives in a trash can
because he is lazy and doesn't want to contribute to society."

You've ever urged someone to pull themselves up by their
bootstraps, when they don't even have shoes.

You confuse Lenin with Lennon.
post #150 of 178
Fascist
post #151 of 178
MeXican

Anti PRI

I just hope that Fox can turn my country around.
:cheers:
"I don't think I'm ever going to find Jesus Christ, So I'd rather spend my cash on vice."
--The Twelve Steps by Spiritualized
Reply
"I don't think I'm ever going to find Jesus Christ, So I'd rather spend my cash on vice."
--The Twelve Steps by Spiritualized
Reply
post #152 of 178
Damn MacOrace, that's gotta sting!
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #153 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Damn MacOrace, that's gotta sting!</strong><hr></blockquote>

What? Exactly?
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #154 of 178
It's either your skin that's really thick or it's your skull. I'm leaning towards the latter.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #155 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>It's either your skin that's really thick or it's your skull. I'm leaning towards the latter.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Let me explain...when someone asks you a question...you don't answer it with a question. There are how many comments in this thread, which one would it be?

Hey, if people want Fox to turn their country around then so be it.

If people want to call someone a facist for posting that republican thingy, so be it.

If RRamjet wants to not argue so decides to just criticise someone in stead, then that's weak but...so be it.

Ok then, those were the last three posts. Which one was it supposed to be? Not the republican one, I found that quite funny.
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
"Trying is the first step to failure - Homer J. Simpson"
Reply
post #156 of 178
[quote]Originally posted by macoracle:
<strong>
If RRamjet wants to not argue so decides to just criticise someone in stead, then that's weak but...so be it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've certainly done more than just criticise you but of course, I haven't been at all reticent in my criticism of you. You do present such a "target rich" enviroment. It's amazing to me how you can post so much and enlighten so little.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #157 of 178
American
Republican

Pro-Choice
Pro-Space Travel
Pro Big Business (except for monopolies like Microsoft)
Gun Control
Pro Bush/Blair
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #158 of 178
Double post

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</p>
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #159 of 178
USA (Northeastern Pennsylvania)
Liberal Democrat

Pro-Europe
Pro-Choice
Pro- Environment
Anti- Death Penalty
Anti- Drug Legalization
post #160 of 178
Australian (Friend to America)
Australian Labour Party

But a big fan of Al Gore...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Official AppleInsider Political Affiliation Poll