RE: Taking responsibility

RE: Taking responsibility (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/28/2009 12:47:19 PM)
OK kit, take that tone. To that I say - prove your point. I want to see real evidence of six million, not five million nine hundred and ninety nine thousand nine hundred and nine hundred ninety nine, SIX MILLION. (I hope to never have to type that again) Moreover, I shall not engage in an argument about the Protocols with someone who hasn't read it, have you ? Can you refute just one point made in that document ? Just one, bet you can't. It is freely available online so you have no excuse. I'll send it to you if you can't find it. And just for the record, I see the Protocols as a tool used by the Zionists to expand and maintain control over the Hebrews, and possibly to instill a bit of hope, in light of the fact that they had just gone through some rough times. And calling it a forgery does not work, SOMEONE wrote it. Or is the source more important than the content to you ? Did not the letters between Ford and Hitler exist ? Who would write the Rosenthal document, and whoever it was, first of all why, and second of all, I am writing this right now, so how could it be a forgery ? A forgery of what ? And what of "Silent weapons for secret wars" ? If it was not written by Ansel Rothchild, does that negate the very astute observations of the author ? Unfortunately you can't get a full and complete copy of that on the net, but I have it on paper and have read it and I comprehend it. I think the title was mis-chosen, because it is not so much about a war as it is about manipulating the monetary system, cause and effect. I don't care who wrote it, they were intelligent. In other words, get busy and PROVE ME WRONG. In fact just dispute or refute one assertion in the Protocols. You have never done that, you simply damn the thing summarily. Have you even read it ? How can you disagree if not ? Think about that. So, "Setting aside fine words and phrases" get on it. Be on notice that I will be reluctant to respond to your baseless whining about my mentioning things you don't like, or I suspect were told not to like. Quote me one phrase out of the Protocols to prove that you have read it. Otherwise you have no idea with what you are disagreeing. As much as I hate to say it, that is ignorant. Thing is that we do agree on quite a bit. Be effective in your argument and you will provide an effective balance to Hunky for example, who is still enthralled by Alex Jones. While Alex jones brings out some interestinmg facts, his conclusions are usually quite off the wall. In fact I don't think he could find the wall with the most expensive studfinder in the world. When and if you are ever really ready to debate me on the subject, we could either do mail or start a thread ad hoc. But we can't keep this up in other people's threads. I think the mods are going to get sick of it. So bring some facts. T

kittinSol -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/28/2009 2:06:48 PM)
When you finally acknowledge that The Protocols are nothing but a piece of trash fit only to wipe up swine shit, and when you stop quoting from repugnant neo-Nazi websites, we might be able to chat in an intelligent manner. Until then, it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.

Raiikun -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/28/2009 2:25:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or . And calling it a forgery does not work, SOMEONE wrote it. To be fair, ALL forgeries are written by SOMEONE. ;) That said, the reason the Protocols are a forgery, is because it was proven to be a plagurized work, with characters just changed to Jews to fit the agenda of the person who concocted the thing. Thus, I take it about as seriously as Star Wars..."Whoever came up with a giant star that can destroy planets is brilliant! We should be vigilant against that sorta thing! (I don't care if it's not real, SOMEONE wrote it!)"

kittinSol -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/28/2009 2:33:30 PM)
They are a false document. From wiki: "A false document is a form of verisimilitude that attempts to create a sense of authenticity beyond the normal and expected suspension of disbelief for a work of art. The goal of a false document is to fool an audience into thinking that what is being presented is actually a fact." Just like The Blair Witch Project or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre except less entertaining.

slvemike4u -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/28/2009 4:56:26 PM)
The Blair Witch Project was a fake?........shit,who can you trust these days?

Termyn8or -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/28/2009 7:52:33 PM)
Forgery, false, a wiki definition. Nothing said about the content. Nothing. I suspect that nobody knows the damn content because they won't or can't read the damn thing. The wiki definition could apply to the book of Revelations, Genesis, or the US dollar bill. Case in point : "It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare. " Now let's just say I wrote that. Would you disagree ? "A people left to itself, i.e., to upstarts from its midst, brings itself to ruin by party dissension's excited by the pursuit of power and honours and disorders arising therefrom. Is it possible for the masses of the people calmly and without petty jealousies to form judgments, to deal with the affairs of the country, which cannot be mixed up with personal interests? Can they defend themselves from an eternal foe? It is unthinkable, for a plan broken up into as many parts as there are heads in the mob, loses all homogeneity, and thereby becomes unintelligible and impossible of execution. " Sounds to me like the forger is extolling the virtues of good government. Not that we have it mind you. If one can manage to read the whole thing, they can see that the ultimate goal is good government worldwide, and an end to petty wars and border disputes. It also discusses that some temporary evils are necessary to achieve the greater good. After considering history, how can anyone dispute it ? Now consider these words : "Men shall seek death and not find it". Now we live in a society in which abortion is allowed, yet euthenasia is criminalized, where control over deadly weapons is such the many are unable to defend themselves. Now why should I give more creedence to those words ? Just because they were in the Bible ? Written over 2,000 years ago. Men of insight, perhaps to the point of qualifying as foresight have existed in human history. Not every one of them was a King or labelled some sort of prophet in their lifetime. Some were considered heretics. Some were proven right postumasly. Hindsight is quite clear, as always. Is every word in the Protocols irrefutable truth ? I doubt it. Is every word in the Bible irrefutable truth ? I won't even answer that. In this venue I simply don't think it necessary. I never claimed any such thing in the first place, but I do note those uncanny paralells to actual history. They are many. I judge anything by the content, and as far as I am concerned anyone who can't do that is ill prepared for a debate with me. Not one person on this forum has ever considered and effectively argued against anything contained therein. Not once, and I suspect that is because they can't. Just like democrats dismiss the words of republicans and vice versa, they must be wrong because of who they are. I have never heard of anything so ignorant. Not stupid, for which there is a cure, I mean ignorant. Not much different than burning books. When people dismiss me summarily for bringing certain ideas to the table, there are only a couple of impetus' I can figure out for that action. One would be to guide my belief system, the other would be to limit my expression thereof. Friends, I have never met anyone in my life with the requisite intelligence to do that, and doubt I ever will. Nobody can tell me what is untrue, because they themselves do not know the complete truth, and neither do I. What I say here also applies to the words of Farrakan, MLK, Dr. Pierce. I take the pearls of wisdom without having to accept the entire tenet of the author's belief system. Why can't others do that ? What, did someone start telling you never to read certain things since you were a toddler ? Did someone teach you that a liar cannot tell the truth ? That is absurd, to effectively lie one must mix in the truth, otherwise the reciever of said lies could just believe the opposite which would be the truth. Very counterproductive for the liar. With my candid and careful responses, and the lack of same from those who oppose me on this subject, I am starting to think that I have been underestimated, and that I have possibly overestimated others. Now just go read the damn thing and come up with something fucking with substance. The challenge remains, I have seen NOTHING of the sort here, nor anywhere else. And not to show off my IQ here, but there is one irrefutable fact : If you don't know who wrote it, you don't know who didn't. READ THE DAMN THING, until you do, what reason would I have to take you seriously ? You know who you are. T

kittinSol -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/28/2009 8:10:03 PM)
Crackpot. Theory.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/28/2009 8:26:30 PM)
What does any of this have to do with the OP?

Termyn8or -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/28/2009 10:07:45 PM)
Orion, you are right. I apologize for bringing so much of this argument here. Sorry to take your thread off bearing, but I will not admit to hijacking at this time. Perhaps kit and I need our own thread in which to debate this, IF SHE EVER READS THE DAMN THING. Perhaps I erred, succumbing to the provokation, her insistance that I disregard this, with absolutely nothing to back it up. I will soon start that thread, and I am going to do it down in Polls. There will be a vote, I will think it out. Non-racist, non-bigoted, but a real exploration of why we believe certain things and dismiss others. Like phrenology, some guy didn't come up with those "theories" from living in a jar, or on Mars. He applied logic to the input he recieved in real life more than likely. Phrenology has been largely dismissed because as other things, there came so many exceptions eventually that the rule was no longer valid. Things change and this happens. I am a forward thinker, and an omnidirectional thinker, and I think I am right. Who doesn't ? If I thought I was wrong I would be lying. I don't, and I never make a promise. Again, sorry to pollute your thread. I am going to head to polls to see if I can get this done tonight, as I have to work tomorrow. You are totally welcome there and if you hijack it, well this is CM. I will grin and bear it. Fair enough ? T

Truthiness -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/29/2009 5:33:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or I judge anything by the content, and as far as I am concerned anyone who can't do that is ill prepared for a debate with me. Indeed, and the content is a proven work of fiction.

DomKen -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/29/2009 10:04:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Moreover, I shall not engage in an argument about the Protocols with someone who hasn't read it, have you ? Can you refute just one point made in that document ? Just one, bet you can't. It is freely available online so you have no excuse. I'll send it to you if you can't find it. I can refute every point of it. It is an anti Napoleon satire that had some minor changes made and is presented as something written by a conspiracy of jews. It was written, mostly, by a french protestant who didn't like Napolean not by anyone having anything to do with jews. That you believe even one word of it when ample and compelling proff of its true origin is widely and freely available makes one wonder about your prejudices but of course you long ago disabused me of any doubts in that regard.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/30/2009 5:20:02 AM)
So what do you think about Secretary Clinton's comment? Seems she is taking responsibility as an American, rather than along party lines. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Moreover, I shall not engage in an argument about the Protocols with someone who hasn't read it, have you ? Can you refute just one point made in that document ? Just one, bet you can't. It is freely available online so you have no excuse. I'll send it to you if you can't find it. I can refute every point of it. It is an anti Napoleon satire that had some minor changes made and is presented as something written by a conspiracy of jews. It was written, mostly, by a french protestant who didn't like Napolean not by anyone having anything to do with jews. That you believe even one word of it when ample and compelling proff of its true origin is widely and freely available makes one wonder about your prejudices but of course you long ago disabused me of any doubts in that regard.

DomKen -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/30/2009 7:51:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf So what do you think about Secretary Clinton's comment? Seems she is taking responsibility as an American, rather than along party lines. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Moreover, I shall not engage in an argument about the Protocols with someone who hasn't read it, have you ? Can you refute just one point made in that document ? Just one, bet you can't. It is freely available online so you have no excuse. I'll send it to you if you can't find it. I can refute every point of it. It is an anti Napoleon satire that had some minor changes made and is presented as something written by a conspiracy of jews. It was written, mostly, by a french protestant who didn't like Napolean not by anyone having anything to do with jews. That you believe even one word of it when ample and compelling proff of its true origin is widely and freely available makes one wonder about your prejudices but of course you long ago disabused me of any doubts in that regard. I note that when the racist bile was brought into this thread you didn't complain about the hijack. It was only when people decided to counter the hate speech that you started complaining however you haven't yet actually responded to the long winded racist filth being spouted in the thread. Why? Is it ok with you and only when people respond to hate speech with more speech that you have a problem?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/30/2009 7:56:46 AM)
I did mention it as soon as I saw it start a derail. Instead I can just start using the report function and allow the already over worked Mods take care of it, or we can be adult about it. The choice is really yours. Care to address the OP? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I note that when the racist bile was brought into this thread you didn't complain about the hijack. It was only when people decided to counter the hate speech that you started complaining however you haven't yet actually responded to the long winded racist filth being spouted in the thread. Why? Is it ok with you and only when people respond to hate speech with more speech that you have a problem?

DomKen -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/30/2009 8:20:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I did mention it as soon as I saw it start a derail. Instead I can just start using the report function and allow the already over worked Mods take care of it, or we can be adult about it. The choice is really yours. Care to address the OP? quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I note that when the racist bile was brought into this thread you didn't complain about the hijack. It was only when people decided to counter the hate speech that you started complaining however you haven't yet actually responded to the long winded racist filth being spouted in the thread. Why? Is it ok with you and only when people respond to hate speech with more speech that you have a problem? So racist comments were ok with you until it derailed the thread from allowing you to make what ever gotcha claim you had in mind?

Termyn8or -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/30/2009 8:56:45 AM)
I have already apologized, and I will try to avoid referencing it in the future. Now as to the OP, does anyone remember what it was about ? LOL I am not conceding, just calling for a truce, you are not going to convince me because I think whoever wrote it has some gray matter, I am not going to convince you because you think the material is tainted somehow. That has become clear. It's just that we can't go on like this. We'll eventually wreck the forum and I don't want that. This is a wonderful forum but I guess there are just certain topics that should be left alone here. I see the results, we've derailed at least two threads over it and it isn't worth it. The historical signifigance of something written close to 100 years ago simply isn't worth the time and trouble. Let's disagree about something else shall we ? T

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/30/2009 9:32:44 AM)
Thanks T. The original OP was about a politician, specifically Secretary Clinton, admitting that it was the fault of the then Republican President and a Democrat led congress for creating the Taliban. The relevance is she was testifying before a committee on the threats in Pakistan. To me it seems like a comment where she has set aside partisan politics to address a very important issue. I see it as an example that everyone, regardless of party, could follow. There are some serious issues that have to be addressed with cooperation and compromise.

DomKen -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/30/2009 12:05:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Thanks T. The original OP was about a politician, specifically Secretary Clinton, admitting that it was the fault of the then Republican President and a Democrat led congress for creating the Taliban. The relevance is she was testifying before a committee on the threats in Pakistan. To me it seems like a comment where she has set aside partisan politics to address a very important issue. I see it as an example that everyone, regardless of party, could follow. There are some serious issues that have to be addressed with cooperation and compromise. Well the serious issue that needs to be addressed first is your appalling lack of knowledge in regards to the history of the Taliban. The Taliban is not the creation of the US Congress or of Reagan. The Taliban did not exist until long after Reagan was no longer self aware. The Taliban was the creation of the Pakistani intelligence service for the express purpose of taking over Afghanistan from the bickering, but unfriendly to the Pakistani intelligence service, former muhajideen leaders that were fighting over the country in the mid 90's after the collapse of the USSR.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/30/2009 12:11:31 PM)
You are correct, I should have said recruited. Was there anything useful you had to say about the OP? Just in case you missed it: ‘They [Soviet Union] invaded Afghanistan… and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work… and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.’ ‘And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.’ ‘And guess what … they (Soviets) retreated … they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.’

DomKen -> RE: Taking responsibility (4/30/2009 12:22:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf You are correct, I should have said recruited. Was there anything useful you had to say about the OP? Just in case you missed it: ‘They [Soviet Union] invaded Afghanistan… and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work… and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.’ ‘And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.’ ‘And guess what … they (Soviets) retreated … they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.’ The US did not recruit the Taliban either. The US recruited the muhajideen in the early 80's from all over the muslim world. the Taliban was formed from Madrassa students in Pakistan in the mid 90's.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125