Ok, well someone has to start so it may as well be me. If we’re all finished calling each other names, can we get back on topic? Nursey, that was all very interesting but I hope you'll agree, the more outrageous a story or news item is, the harder it is for most people to take it at face value and assume it's true, especially of the only source for the information is Rense or some other conspiracy theorist site. Do you have any other sources for this information than Rense? It's easy to get caught up in these kinds of things and God knows I’m guilty of it too. I used to spend hours reading about chem-trails and other nonsensical things. Please don’t be offended but I doubt that most of the information your post is accurate. Can you back it up with confirmation from a more credible source? But to add a little fuel to your fire, do you think that, if population reduction is a priority of the US government’s current administration, that might explain the 3 day delay in any kind of a response to the recent tragedy in Asia? Seems to me that if population reduction is something in which they’re interested, that would have been the perfect move. Another thing to consider is, how would such a policy survive thirty years and how many different administrations. Who was president in 1974? Nixon?
What the fuck, Barry? Why suddently do you have to throw the age/education difference in my face? I don't care if you have 20 college degrees. All the education in the world can't teach you humanity, humility, empathy, and tolerance. You seem to lack all these somethimes. You just can't admit that you jumped the gun in relation to Nursey's original intention in regards to this thread.
I guess I can't. I think I made an extremely keen observation that was right on target. The first three lines were a brief refute, and the rest was my personal opinion of the complete lack of credibility in Nursey's most recent posts. Debate the original post if you want. It makes about as much sense as debating who would win a fist fight between the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. Barry
Well Santa Claus out wieghs him by about 300 lbs, but the easter bunny is fast as fuck, but im wondering if it would be a kickboxing match, as we all know that bunnies can kick and HARD!!! I'm gonna have to say the easter bunnies quickness and stanima would make him the winner, but it would be close!!!
....as Schmed plays peacemaker by deflecting the tension with humor.... 8) .....he deftly illustrates my point. We can argue all day, and make good arguments for either, but the unspoken problem remains - neither exist except in our imaginations. The same is true for the conspiracy theory that started this post. Why debate something that exists only in someone's imagination? If you want to argue who would win, (Santa or EB) doesn't it really need to start with an argument of whether they are real? And if you argue that they are real....... a waste of bandwidth, as I said. Barry
He is real if you really believe that he's real. hum.... wonders if the same if true for God...??? Barry
Well, honestly, it's kind of hard to tell what you 'look like' when all you post are pictures of Karen Carpenter's body. Nazi isn't a word to throw around lightly. And Hitler didn't want everyone to be like him. If it weren't for the Jews, he would have had no notarity. He needed them around so that he could feel superior. Barry was merely expressing his opinion.
I take Nazi as being a member of Hitler's party. All too often is the word thrown around and glorified... especially here. And to confuse Nazi with bigot is a little naive on your part. In my opinion, Nazi is not a synonym for bigot or racist. And you can't call Barry a bigot because he wasn't hating on someone's race.
Barfy, bigotry isn't just about racism. big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics" Is there a person in this forum who doesn't fit this description? We all are partial to our own identity. There is nothing wrong with that. I would be worried about a person that had no strong ties to his/her group/identity. Bigotry arises, not from affiliation, but from intolerance. Failing to recognise that people are different, and have a right to be different, is bigotry. "....intolerant of those who differ." What if the person is a conservative, heterosexual, fundamentalist Christian American? How tolerate is everyone of that person? My experience has been that tolerance is a one way street. The "enlightened ones" demand tolerance from everyone, but they do not return it. Labels are narrow and are poor ways to define people. We are all guilty of using them, but it still a poor way to do communicate. Barry The problem is that many people confuse acceptance with tolerance. I can be tolerant of someone or something without accepting what they believe or being a participant in their lifestyle.
Very nice. Now go look up Nazi. Here. I'll do it for you. Definitions of nazi on the Web: a German member of Adolf Hitler's political party www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn relating to or consistent with or typical of the ideology and practice of Nazism or the Nazis; "the total Nazi crime"; "the Nazi interpretation of history" www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn national socialist: relating to a form of socialism; "the national socialist party came to power in 1933" www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn A Nazi is a very specific type of bigot. It's not the same thing as a bigot because a bigot covers a lot of hate. And this isn't the first time in this forum that I have pointed out how much I dislike anything pertaining to nazi. I think I may have even started a thread on it.
You can't call anyone that's hating on someone/something a nazi... you can't very well call someone who hates white anglo saxon protestants nazis now can you?
Hey Reiv, now that it is pretty clear that I am not a Nazi, can we peacefully coexist? Friendship may be a stretch, but with a little tolerance from both of us..... Barry
