War...get it over with already.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Cobra, the issue is about who is directly hurt.  In my examples, the people not the governments are the ones directly hurt, while the goverments are the ones hurt by relation.

In Bucc's example the offender is hurt directly and the clerks are hurt indirectly.  A better example would be boycotting the store because the clerks did something wrong.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bucc, your analogy to put it gently sucks ass.  I am talking about the punishing of people for the actions of a government and you suggest the example of punishing a shopowner for the actions of the shopowner.  In my example you punish one person for the actions of another, in your example you punish the person for the actions by that person.  Since the examples are completely different, I'd be fine with you choosing to punish the shopowner.

Bondo, then you must have a problem reading very deeply into both sides.  In the analogy, even when boycotting the store, the clerks suffer (because they lose money, may get laid-off, etc).  They aren't different.  Take the time to think about it.

Also, I never said the actions of killing vs. boycotting were the same.  

What you said was:

But I don't support the boycott because it hurts French citizens for the action of the government which is no more justified than like I said, terrorists killing American citizens because they dislike the US government.

Sounds like you just equated them to me.  Like I've been saying.  It's much more justified, because it's a proportional response.  What I've been saying is it's about proportionate response.  They piss us off, we stop supporting them.  Big difference between that and killing them off.  

The reason your stance is so off Bondo, is that you take the free out of free market.  The way you see it, I shouldn't organize boycotts against Pepsi Co, for their deforestation of the Amazon, because it will cause the workers of that company to lose their jobs.  

This is a free market.  If the French people are hurt by a boycott along with the government (since both will feel any effect to the economy), so be it.  They are a democratic nation too.  

So, Bondo, stop lumping boycott, embargo, and terrorism all in there together.  Hell, and I've said this before, if you really feel that way, you should be pissed at the French for their imposed trade deficit with the USA.  Right?  Charging higher tariffs on USA goods, so that less is imported, and that which is, the French still make money off.  It's not the US's job to support the economy of any other nation.  Especially when those other nations do not support ours, but hurt it.

Bucc, you STILL don't get my house example.  It has nothing to do with the strength of the walls.  It simply has to do with a wall not being a house.  I'm not talking about strength of arguments, I'm saying that you can only judge a house based on the house, not on its parts.

FUCK!  And you and Loud accuse me of talking down, while you fucking do it all the time.  I know I talk down, but I don't bitch about it from others, other then to point out the hypocritical nature of their comments.  I've said it, I'll say it again.  I got you point.  I don't agree.  I think you are fucking wrong!!  What don't you get about that?

I'm judging the house based on the house.  And the house I see is a pile of rubble, because the walls (individual arguments) weren't strong enough to hold the roof up.  Your house fell down Bondo.  How am I not getting your analogy?

Anyway, I guess I'm just wrong, Loud is just wrong, Zait is just wrong, kami is just wrong, and tasty is just wrong.  We are all completely mistaken in our statements because you disagree, and of course you hold all the knowledge in the world.  Sorry, but I won't hold back from being absolute, you DO piss on anybody that disagrees with you.

Bondo, you piss on more people then I do, all the fucking time.  I've proven it over and over.  Just like I've proven your absolute wrong, with my abe example.

I piss on you because you make an argument, and if I don't agree, you ignore what I write and just say "you don't get it".  So Bondo, yes, I'm both smatter and wiser then you.  Why?  Not because I have all the knowledge in the world, but because I don't ignore gaps and whole fucking holes in my own logic.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Cobra, the issue is about who is directly hurt.  In my examples, the people not the governments are the ones directly hurt, while the goverments are the ones hurt by relation.

In Bucc's example the offender is hurt directly and the clerks are hurt indirectly.  A better example would be boycotting the store because the clerks did something wrong.

Bondo, here's why you are wrong here.  The store owner wouldn't be the one hurt first.  He'd be ok, while cutting back on the store clerks pay, then getting rid of some, etc.  It's the way business works.  The store clerks would suffer first.  The clerks would hurt directly too in my analogy.

If you turn it around, it still works too.

Store owner hires the clerk.  We boycott because of the molester working there.  Store owner refused to fire the clerk.  Store can't afford to pay as much.  Both suffer.  Worst case, store goes out of business, owner is bankrupt, clerk out of work.  Both got hurt because they are connected through economy.  No two ways about it.  Doesn't matter which side you take.  

Connect it to the French.  It's up to them to decide if they support their government actions, and don't mind pissing us off and losing our business (which seems to be the case) or if they push their government to play nice.

First analogy was better though, but Bondo doesn't see that the clerks get hurt too in it.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Hmm.  Does your latest 1000-words not reinforce the point I've been trying to get across Bucc?  I simply don't have the time or energy to itemize a response of what is wrong with each sentence you said.  I'll take it that "fuck off" was part of a whole. . .it doesn't exactly stand well on it's own does it?

Fine, then fuck off and don't debate with me.  Doesn't matter to me either way Loudnotes.  You don't like my style, fine.  You've said it, I've said in other threads that I wont be changing it, and why.  Now get over it or stop debating with me.  Or, fuck off.  Does that not reinforce the point I've been trying to get across Loud?  

But you know what?  If you persist in debating this way - the online equivalent of shouting down your opponent - you're not going to have much of anyone to debate with.  

Go to a debate sometime Loud.  Join the debate club at your school.  This isn't shouting down your opponent.  If you think it is, then you don't really understand the concept.  Shouting down your opponent is what Rapid does, when he keeps repeating the same thing, over and over, without any regard to what anyone else has said.  Not addressing any point.  

On the other hand, what you are doing is going after the person, not the argument.  You make it personal.  You don't like the way I debate, so you attack that, and not the points I make.

I fully expect you to be able to respond to what I'm writing here.  But the how the hell is anyone supposed to synthesize your dissertation into a coherent argument that can be nitpicked?  It can hardly be done - how do you nitpick the nitpicking?  You haven't even come up with any original argument that anyone else could decimate - you've focused only on attacking others'.

Really?  All I ever say is "you are wrong".  I never, in my posts, say why, then express what I think is right?  If you think that, you obviously need to read more slowly, getting deeper into it.  

It can hardly be done?  Again I say bullshit.  I can do it.  Others can do it to me.  You may have trouble doing it, but it's not hard, and not even close to the herculean task you make it out to be.

So. . .if I were to "fuck off" then what?  You win?  Congratulations.  Personally I use this board to test my own ideas against the opinions of others.  I'm not quite sure what you use it for. . .  

Loudnotes, if you fuck off, it means I don't have to listen to a whiney voice bitching about they way I debate, instead of about the issues and opinions.  

It's fully possible to have debate, which involves at least two parties responding, without any one party completely silencing the other.  That's not the point of this.  Or if it is to you, you're in the wrong place.

I've not asked, nor tired to silence anyone.  You have been the one trying to curtail the way I debate, not the other way around Loudnotes.  And it's an old Bondo argument that I've been through before.  I use a style of debate, recognized by many philosophers.  You don't like it, ok, good for you.  I'm not changing it because you don't.  If you want to talk about it, it's good points and bad, go back and read the thread where I discussed it with Bondo, so we can start where we left off, and I'm not repeating myself.

But it's up to you.  You want to convince me my method of debate is wrong (instead of telling me like you are an expert on it), then try.  You want to just whine about it, and ignore the issues at hand, then fuck off.  Because your bitching about it isn't adding anything to the actual topics anyway.  

Or is that why you come here?  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

In Bucc's example the offender is hurt directly and the clerks are hurt indirectly.  A better example would be boycotting the store because the clerks did something wrong.

First analogy was better though, but Bondo doesn't see that the clerks get hurt too in it.

*Looks at his comment...then Bucc's, then back at his, then back at Bucc's...scratches head*

Anyway, I don't deny the right to boycott French goods, I'm just saying it is no better reasoning than the terrorists reasoning for 9/11.  Saying that neither action is more justified doesn't mean the actions are equal just that the motives are.  So I'm not failing to understand free market...I am giving the freedom to take that action, I just am saying it is idiotic to do so with the reasoning that they do.

As for France, they aren't putting the tarrifs because the US disagrees with them or to punish the US.  You do realize that motive is a big issue here right Bucc?

About my house being rubble...you CANNOT use opinion as a proof of a weak argument.  That is what you do...that and use misreading/misinterpreting.  In essance what you are doing is not seeing my house as rubble but actually driving your bulldozer of differing opinion, misreading, and misunderstanding into my house and wrecking it.  What I'm providing is a solidly built house but you are only looking at it after you've destroyed it.

I'm with Loud, if you don't change your arguing style, you aren't going to have many people left who argue with.  I for one won't be acknowledging your posts that you use your point by point manner anymore.  If you want me to read what you write and have a debate, then you will need to act appropriately.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I think what the UN needs to do is remove everyone's veto right.  I think whether a resolution passes should purely be on account of it winning a majority (or perhaps 2/3 majority) of the votes.  As such, I don't think France should veto, I think they should simply vote against any resolution that says there will be war.  Add Russia, China, Germany, etc in.  If the resolution gets the 9 votes then go with it, if they don't which I suspect they wouldn't if they weren't bribing every country, then the US has to just accept it.  No country should have more say or rights than any other in the UN.

I think that the large numbers of other countries that are opposed to the war show that France isn't merely trying to show that they have power when they really don't, they merely are using the power that they do have in the form of the ability to veto to push their case, just like the US is using its power (money and bombs) to push its case.  It is a fault of the UN setup that should be reformed and the French shouldn't be blamed for it.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I'm just saying it is no better reasoning than the terrorists reasoning for 9/11.  Saying that neither action is more justified doesn't mean the actions are equal just that the motives are.  So I'm not failing to understand free market...I am giving the freedom to take that action, I just am saying it is idiotic to do so with the reasoning that they do.

And I'm saying you are wrong.  I'm saying one is an appropriate response of removing my support.  The other is an inappropriate response.  And you can't separate motive from action.  The people of France seem to be backing their government, and why should I support them economically when I don't agree with them?  Tell me that??  

As for France, they aren't putting the tarrifs because the US disagrees with them or to punish the US.  You do realize that motive is a big issue here right Bucc?

Sure Bondo, and what is the motive for unfair trade policies?  Is it an acceptable motive, or idiotic in your book?

About my house being rubble...you CANNOT use opinion as a proof of a weak argument.  That is what you do...that and use misreading/misinterpreting.  In essance what you are doing is not seeing my house as rubble but actually driving your bulldozer of differing opinion, misreading, and misunderstanding into my house and wrecking it.  What I'm providing is a solidly built house but you are only looking at it after you've destroyed it.

Nope Bondo.  First little breeze and your house of cards comes falling down.  See, what you can not use is OPINION to build an OPINION on, which is what you do.  You are supposed to use facts to form opinions, not build opinions upon opinions.  And anytime anyone brings up facts (aka, the bulldozer) that don't agree with your opinions, you ignore them.  And it's not misreading.  We have a whole thread showing how you bring weak arguments, that you redefine words to make them fit.  

I for one won't be acknowledging your posts that you use your point by point manner anymore.  If you want me to read what you write and have a debate, then you will need to act appropriately.

And I say, fuck you.  I don't care.  Seeing as I do have an undergraduate degree which covers debate like a jimmy hat, I do think that my method is appropriate.  You don't like my style, too bad.  I sure as hell am not going to change it for you.  To use your own words against you once again, I know my professors are better judges on the topic then you or Loudnotes.  And I also know what my GPA was for both my degrees.  You may not like my style, but it is completely recognized and used in debate and philosophy, and has been since the time of Plato.  So it is very appropriate.

[jn.loudnotes]

You are wrong.  

Funny how often I've seen that lately.  I'm not going to get into whether that's an effective tactic or not, but we are debating questions of opinion - there's very little hard fact.  And as much as I dislike your arguments, the only thing that has been "wrong" has been your interpretation of others' comments.  Otherwise, we're all just as right as another, though some of us may be a little misguided.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

You are wrong.  

Funny how often I've seen that lately.  I'm not going to get into whether that's an effective tactic or not, but we are debating questions of opinion - there's very little hard fact.  And as much as I dislike your arguments, the only thing that has been "wrong" has been your interpretation of others' comments.  Otherwise, we're all just as right as another, though some of us may be a little misguided.

There goes Loundnotes, the great thinker, making a fake quote again.  Asshole.  Yes, personal attack in response to that attack.  You are really being a whiny little asshole.  All you can talk about is me, not the actual topic.  Get over it already.  

Quick question to the board moderators, isn't it against the rules here to make fake quotes, like it is on most boards?  Or is Loudnotes above the rules?

As for the rest of your post, bullshit.  If you think my interpretation is wrong, point out where it's wrong for me.  Otherwise, you are just posturing, not actually using any reason.

Actually, Bucc, I just mistyped the quoting symbol, which has now been fixed.  Note your first statement on reply #66 of this thread.  I didn't make it up, I just took it out of context as is your wont.   - ln

[|MP|Buccaneer]

No country should have more say or rights than any other in the UN.

Bondo, I agree with you that the VETO is too powerful and easy to use, giving too much power to some nations within the UN.  However, I think equal rights come with equal responsibilities.

What I mean is, if every nation wants the same rights and weight in the UN, they have to support it equally.  That means, when the UN decides to act in say, Africa (to stay off the current issues), then every country in the UN should have to send supplies and forces for the peace keeping troops.  The burden shouldn't be just with largest countries, should it?

Why should a country that never puts it's lives, or even money on the line, have as much say as those that do?

I'm not saying that they have to send as many people, or spend as much money as the USA (though, that would be nice too).  I'm saying that every country, to be equal, has to share the burden equally as well.  

Until that happens, I think some countries should have more say and power in the UN, since they risk more, spend more, and shoulder more of the responsibility.  To me, they go hand in hand.

I think that the large numbers of other countries that are opposed to the war show that France isn't merely trying to show that they have power when they really don't, they merely are using the power that they do have in the form of the ability to veto to push their case, just like the US is using its power (money and bombs) to push its case.  It is a fault of the UN setup that should be reformed and the French shouldn't be blamed for it.

Bondo, for France to vote down action against Iraq is all good with me.  It's their right, and if that's the way they feel, their duty to vote that way.  It's not anything I hold against them.  Many others feel the same was as I do.

I do think that the veto is more an abuse of power then the use of it.  That goes for anyone using it, including the USA.  

I also think that if Bush doesn't go before Congress, and get it's approval before actually attacking Iraq, he's abusing his powers too.  He has the right to do it, but there is no reason for him to not go before Congress, unless he thinks they wont support the war.

[tasty]

I think that each country should be obligated to commit troops and money as it is proportionally able. For example, if the US GDP is 8 times bigger and the US military is 20 times bigger (figures made up just for the sake of this example) than a country like Angola, the US should be obligated to commit forces and money in that proportion to Angola.

Does anyone know if Bush plans to take the war to congress? I'm sure it will pass, but with what proportion of votes? Some political weasels on the democratic side have changed their opinion on the war now that the midterm elections are over and now say that they will oppose a war. I'm thinking maybe a 65-35 vote in the senate?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I think that each country should be obligated to commit troops and money as it is proportionally able. For example, if the US GDP is 8 times bigger and the US military is 20 times bigger (figures made up just for the sake of this example) than a country like Angola, the US should be obligated to commit forces and money in that proportion to Angola.

I would actually like to see it completely equal (think about it, if every nation put up, they woudn't need many from any one nation).  

I'll make up easy numbers for the math.  If there are 100 countries in the UN, then if it calls for 100,000 peace keeping troops and $10,000,000 to enforce a resolution, then each nation should have to send 1000 troops and $100,000.  If you can't afford one, you have to make it up in the other.  This is very simplified, of course.  Rotation or any other method would be acceptable.  But when you spread the burden out over all the nations, they should all be able to shoulder an equal amount.

I look at it like a flat tax.  I'd be much happier with a flat % tax rate in the USA, then the graduated rates we have now.  I don't think it's actually fair or equal that just because someone has more, they owe more.  

That would be the perfect solution in my opinion.  But I'd even accept the graduated one if it came about.

Does anyone know if Bush plans to take the war to congress? I'm sure it will pass, but with what proportion of votes?

I haven't heard a whisper of it.  And knowing Bush, I doubt he'll do it.  He is the bull in the china shop.

Yeah, I'd expect it to pass, maybe more like 75-25.  Even though public opinion is closer then that, only in areas where public opinion is strongly anti-war would Congress dare to vote against it (IMO).  

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I'd like to say that by withdrawing from having a vote on the new resolution...the US proves that it wasn't going to get a majority of votes.  French veto aside, it wouldn't pass.  Now some say that the French threat made people waver on their support, but that is as much a sign of how much the US was doing to bribe votes as anything.  They wouldn't have reason to oppose the US just because of a French veto unless they truly were in opposition to the US.  Seeing as the French veto is in essance not mattering, I think it is time we get off their case.  They have a different view and in the run of things the US wasn't supported by the UN as a whole.  This war is thus unjustified as all international conflict needs to be covered by UN law to be justified.  And people who say 1441 covered the war and that we didn't need to get another, that is untrue, it was vague so that it does not give justification to the war.

Anyway, seeing as Saddam is stating that he won't leave, expect the war to start tomorrow, when it is nighttime in Iraq.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Actually, Bucc, I just mistyped the quoting symbol, which has now been fixed.  Note your first statement on reply #66 of this thread.  I didn't make it up, I just took it out of context as is your wont.   - ln

You got it.  You take it out of context.  Again.  You are the undesputed king of that so far.

And, btw asshole, you still changed it.  You took it from the middle of a sentence, and changed the Y so it looks like it is the whole of the sentence.  Or was that another simple typo?

Want to continue to escilate this asshole, no problem.  But that's on you.  I've told you I'm not changing my style for you.  You've demanded it.  I've told you fine, ignore my posts, you can't seem to find it in you to do that.  Too bad.  What you haven't done is shown me any good reason on why I should change.  So you and Bondo don't like it.  Not a very good reason in my book.  So you are a moderator.  Another not so good reason.  So some people may find it hard to follow.  Again, not a great reason.  They can ask questions if that's the case.  So it makes it hard for you to respond.  To that I say "so what".  If it's too hard for you, don't.

What's your problem?  You're pretending to be better then this, but can't stay on a topic without bitching.  Guess you just aren't what you pretend to be.

[jn.loudnotes]

I'm not really sure where all of that came from, nor why exactly you're so angry.  However, I just made 5 posts in your style in the other thread, which I suggest you read.  Capitalizing the Y was an editorialization, which did not change the substance of the quote.  Anyway, as I stated in my text about the quote, it was an example of taking something out of context.  Which, up until now, you have been the only one to do.

Why exactly are my reasons bad ones?  What are you trying to prove?  Why am I an asshole for wanting to have reasonable conversations?  What am I pretending to do?  When have I ever bitched about anything except for this?  Haven't I told you what my problem is?

When your posts attack me, I don't want to ignore them.
When your posts are on subject, I don't want to ignore them.
When you have something to say, I never wanted to ignore it.
When your posts are 3 pages long, I have to ignore at least part of them.

Do you care at all if people can read what you're saying?  If you don't, why are you bothering?  3 of the primary posters on this board have expressed a problem with your current style.  Who else are you talking to?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

You got it.  You take it out of context.  Again.  You are the undesputed king of that so far.

Oh for Christ's sake, have a sense of humor.  It was clearly not meant to be taken literally as the absolute connotation.  You ask if fake quotes are against the rules, I haven't heard that rule and certainly they shouldn't be when clearly for the sake of humor as Loud has done before or in this case where it makes a real point despite being taken out of context.  If he can't take something you did say and take it however he pleases, why should you be able to as you do constantly?

Loud, to his credit, has been on this forum as long as anyone and I have never seen him get in any grudges until now...in essance he is the polar opposite of me.  Mauti alone has a better record of being non-confrontational.

[[DEA] HeLLBeNT]

The simple fact of the matter is, is that Iraq, no matter how you look at it has violated treaties, it signed in 1991. That's 12 years of getting away with whatever they were doing in that time. I think that we should have gotten rid of Saddam a long time ago during the Gulf War. I read today that after World War 1, Germany was forced to sign many treaties and as soon as Hitler came to power all those treaties (Am I spelling that right ?) were broken, and look at the result. World War 2. No one thought that Hitler was a dangerous as he turned out to be, look at the result. Millios upon Millions dead. The point is, is that we study history to learn from our mistakes. Saddam should not be underestimated and removed as soon as possible. As for the changing the name of Frech Fries to "Freedom Fires" I find that absolutly retarted in almost everysense of the word. I was enjoying my fries today at lunch when I heard about it and I smiply laughed. People have been calling fried "French Fries" for far to long now and this is a blantly stupid method of tryin to change their name.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Anyway, French Fries refers entirely to the manner in which they are made and in no way denote origin.  To french is to cut lengthwise and obviously we know what frying is since we are fat americans who like to max the fat

[tasty]

I look at it like a flat tax.  I'd be much happier with a flat % tax rate in the USA, then the graduated rates we have now.  I don't think it's actually fair or equal that just because someone has more, they owe more.  

Aww come on not a flat tax. Poor people in America already have extreme difficulty paying their rent and buying food at their current low tax rates? how would they possibly be able to survive if the tax rate was flat? This will probably make anger you, but I supported Nader's tax plan in 2000. He said that everything above 250,000 should go to the government. That's pretty extreme and I realize nothing like that will ever happen. Socialism, yes basically. Does it infringe on people's economic freedom? Yep. But honestly, who needs more than 250 grand a year?

[jn.loudnotes]

I'd even let them have a little more than that tasty - maybe some people really do NEED a couple yachts and a jumbo jet.  But why not have an assets cap at around $100 million or so?  Or a tax of all annual income over $1 million.  Just an idea. . .

Afterall, is there really any practical objection to that other than the idealogical desire for as much money as can possibly be amassed?