Astor Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I would appreciate it if you don't call me a Marxist. I wouldn't call you something on a personal level. I believe Niner didn't call you a Marxist. He seems to be making a statement that the reason you gave is nothing more than sensationalist. *EDIT* Niner used his azn ninja skills to beat me to it... And, not to be a pedant, but 'England' as an International power ceased to exist after 1707. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 I was poking fun at the fact you didn't give an example for your fifth point, but merely left an ellipsis. I was not calling you a Marxist. I didn't get it the first time, so thanks for explaining why you made the statement. ~snip~ You really don't understand the concept of 'now', do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I simply summarized what he was doing. Don't give me that song and dance. I was poking fun at the fact you didn't give an example for your fifth point, but merely left an ellipsis. I was not calling you a Marxist. Problem here is that Yar-El isn't being a sensationalist, and he was being serious. Nobody asked you to be a moderator, so stop trying to play one. Now. He wouldn't have to if you hadn't gone out of your way to try to pick a fight with me. Good, you admit that you completely switched topics and you conceded the point that mimartin was making. I conceded only that he was right about Texas and secession on its own. When I make an error I'll admit it. That is an appropriate response to his post. I can think of a lot of things to say towards you right now, but since they would be flaming I won't say them. I will say that in my opinion you need to stop with the incindiary remarks directed towards myself or other members because they don't contribute to your credibility at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Actually it's more of I switched bases without making a transition. Not sure where I personally attacked you though? I fail to see how this is a switch of bases. Study your history, Texas is the only state in the Union that was a country before joining the United States. Sounds to me like you are saying I don’t know what I am taking about and have no knowledge of Texas history. This is an insult to a true Texan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Sounds to me like you are saying I don’t know what I am taking about and have no knowledge of Texas history. This is an insult to a true Texan. mimartin, in all seriousness how could I possibly know you were from Texas since it isn't in your profile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 mimartin, in all seriousness how could I possibly know you were from Texas since it isn't in your profile? Perhaps if you didn't prance around the forums presuming your world view is 100% correct, and that everyone else knows less than you, and therefore needs an education from you - would mean you didn't get asked questions like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Perhaps if you didn't prance around the forums presuming your world view is 100% correct, and that everyone else knows less than you, and therefore needs an education from you - would mean you didn't get asked questions like that. Pot calling the kettle black jonathan7, and I've usually found that people here know next to nothing about history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I'd argue that most those posting here have a fairly good knowledge of history, different interpretations persist of course, but that doesen't mean those who disagree with you lack historical knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I'd argue that most those posting here have a fairly good knowledge of history' date=' different interpretations persist of course, but that doesen't mean those who disagree with you lack historical knowledge.[/quote'] They actually usually don't and one of my passions is history, I have a minor in history so I probably know more about history than most people here. Is there areas I don't know as much about, yes though overall I probably know more about history than the norm. Also I tend not to think that people know what they are talking about when they've continually launched personal attacks towards me. (which you have to admit is understandible) Usually that is a classic case of not being able to win on logic so they try charecter assassination. Anyways here's an article from ABC about the Obama Administration trying to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824 Though I sincerely doubt what they consider to be assault weapons to actually be assault weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 They actually usually don't and one of my passions is history, I have a minor in history so I probably know more about history than most people here. Is there areas I don't know as much about, yes though overall I probably know more about history than the norm. Kindly keep such assumptions to yourself. They serve no purpose, and people don't like to be 'educated' by people who proclaim their superiority over them. I'm an amateur student of history myself, but i'm not going to correct people, or shout about it at every opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Can we get back on topic instead of the highly transparent bashfest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Groups like Texas Secede believe Texas has the right to secede from the union, but according the March 30, 1870 Act passed by Congress, Texas does NOT have that right. Thanks Mimartin, that's exactly what I was referring to. your skills, integrity and rationality as a debater. Perhaps if you didn't prance around the forums presuming your world view is 100% correct, and that everyone else knows less than you, and therefore needs an education from you - would mean you didn't get asked questions like that. & QFE. Can we get back on topic instead of the highly transparent bashfest... Wouldn't have to be if you didn't go around and assume that everyone else is less intelligent than you are, when it's likely not true. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Thanks Mimartin, that's exactly what I was referring to. Technically if 2/3s of the states decide to dissolve the Constitution of the United States and leave this country they can. Congressional bill or no congressional bill. Wouldn't have to be if you didn't go around and assume that everyone else is less intelligent than you are, when it's likely not true. Only reason I don't think highly of some people here is their tendency to be unable to have a civil conversation, rather instead they go to attack the person they are debating, deliberately. If I insult someone it's usually accidental, but quite a few people here do it deliberately quite often... Now can we please get back to the topic about the sovereignty thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Technically if 2/3s of the states decide to dissolve the Constitution of the United States and leave this country they can. That's not secession, that's a dissolution of the entire country into constituent pieces >:| Completely different and irrelevant. Try to stay on topic please. _EW_ Usually that is a classic case of not being able to win on logic so they try charecter assassination. Wow. Irony abounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 That's not secession, that's a dissolution of the entire country into constituent pieces >:| Completely different and irrelevant. Try to stay on topic please. Well it's potentially only 3 states away from that having a possibility of happening. Wow. Irony abounds. That would believable if it wasn't usually at least six people ganging up and bashing one to two individuals. That actually qualifies as harassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Fine, take it up with the authorities and get back on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Fine, take it up with the authorities and get back on topic. I already have (at least on the forums), a few hours ago and I know someone else did as well. Anyways, the argument for the states to declare themselves sovereign is that the Federal Government is in violation of the Constitution. Some states are refusing to take bailout money due to the strings that are attached to that money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Anyways, the argument for the states to declare themselves sovereign is that the Federal Government is in violation of the Constitution.Argument is flawed, because I fail to see current government's violation of the Constitution. Some states are refusing to take bailout money due to the strings that are attached to that money.Then they'll probably collapse, because their governors were too partisan enough to accept a handout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Pot calling the kettle black jonathan7, and I've usually found that people here know next to nothing about history. This is possibly my most favourite post ever on Lucasforums, I like it so much I might frame it on my wall... Have you ever considered a career in comedic irony? I think you could make a lot of money! Perhaps if you didn't prance around the forums presuming your world view is 100% correct, and that everyone else knows less than you, and therefore needs an education from you I've usually found that people here know next to nothing about history. Perhaps if you didn't prance around the forums presuming your world view is 100% correct, and that everyone else knows less than you, and therefore needs an education from you I've usually found that people here know next to nothing about history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 This is possibly my most favourite post ever on Lucasforums, I like it so much I might frame it on my wall... Have you ever considered a career in comedic irony? I think you could make a lot of money! Yeah, I've considered it except for the fact I rarely joke about anything, I'd actually wouldn't mind being the next Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, but then I don't think I would care for the constant death threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Yeah, I've considered it except for the fact I rarely joke about anything, I'd actually wouldn't mind being the next Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, but then I don't think I would care for the constant death threats. I'm not sure if he was being serious _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I'm not sure if he was being serious Couldn't care less what he thinks at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Couldn't care less what he thinks at this point. Oh. Just letting you know _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Okay, only thing is, I don't that I'm being threatened by the government, and there is no reason to think so. Hmm. Sorry, but I don't see this "abusive government". Perhaps if you could supply some reason, then maybe I'd actually feel threatened and resort to violent anarchy, as you're proposing. Ah. Well, from what garfiled mentioned which is, in sum, potentially affecting the constitution negatively which may or may not be in the process indefinitely... I wouldn't say no reason in the absolute sense, but that could be a long shot. As a side detractor, Humans also run the government--anyone who could make a mistake. Have you not said in the past that capitalism can be ****ed up as a result of human nature? I'd contend governemnt isn't exactly immune from this either. However you have probably made that clear enough somewhere else... Am I drawing a blank? Please tell me if I am... This is what we elect representatives to the Senate and the House of Reps for. If we had to put every single resolution to a national vote, do you know how long it would take to do anything in this country? That as it may be...could it hurt to have the checks and balances... a bit less on the precarious side of things? I don't think it would. Or maybe I'm just crazy for having reasonable skepticism? I'm wearing a tank top today, no one has stopped me and told me to cover up. Simple classical semantics turns of phrase. Had no idea you were a comedian. What exactly is political correctness limiting, pray tell? In a possible word, specificity. It paints people of a group all one stripe without recognizing that there can be variations amongst that group of people. I.E. White, black, native american, mexican, asian, mutt, etc... In general I'd think most of us would appreciate being able to discern nuances and have our perspectives stand out from one another even if we would agree with a general viewpoint, no? Yeah, I've considered it except for the fact I rarely joke about anything, I'd actually wouldn't mind being the next Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, but then I don't think I would care for the constant death threats. Well, fine, except there is more to it than that. --and I have a more or less realistic perspective what it takes to get into mass media (not necessarily make it, though, but maybe something that might help) if you'd care enough to talk to me about it. ...OK, I gotta pull out a Stop. Garfield, seriously, I am probably the closest thing you have to an ally here on LF outside your friends list. Please hear me out. I may be doing this at great risk of being infracted myself for it, there are certianly enough moderators, super moderators, and administrators here to see it and act upon it. Also on the other side I am risking alienating others like the conservatives and the neutrals. ========== Firstly, you don't really need to dignify everyone's post with a response, let alone respopnding something serious. These people have caught onto that and I'm not sure you realize it. These people are dicking with you, to be sure. I can see that you don't enjoy the animosity. Isn't a logical step to figure out why they are dicking with you? I'm sure half of these goads aren't even worth 1/10th your time more than just reading them and seeing them for what they are. So WHY do you do it? Is it absolutely necessary for you to respond to *every* thing? Why??? I realize you are a serious guy. I'm not taking anything away from it. There must be a more effective way to do it, though. I'd even be willing to help on that. Secondly, maybe understanding and utilizing a little sense of humor yourself might go a long way in understanding others' posts? Hannity comes across a lot easier going to me than Mark LeVinn usually does. Bill O'reilley--meh, not my cup of joe, but hey... whatever moats ya. Point being, part of the appeal of anyone is their persona. Any popular public figure knows how to send a message in general. They know how to effectively send an impression. They also know target audiences--fans, opposition, and neutral alike and how they each respond, and to what. Most importantly, they know how they generally come across. I am not sure you do. Am I telling you to stop your conservatism? NO WAY. There will always be a need for it--and there is nothing that anyone hating it can do about that fact because that is life. I see many here in general opposition to you who might agree with at least some more of the points you are making if you'd concentrate on that instead of nailing *every* thing with a response. Wouldn't you agree making a point and covering it on all sides is a convincing way to go about things? Thirdly: I am a friendly voice, and I am not patronizing you. DO NOT take this the wrong way. As-is, HOWEVER: You are not helping your cause! As an independent in a niche who probably leans more to the right, I am probably a minority here on LF as well. However I am a reasonable guy-even if some of the libs don't want to think so. That's THEIR problem, not mine. In general, if you are serious about your politics and going into the radio field, then perhaps it is time for that. If most people here are just clowns who like to hear themselves talk and want no opposition, then frankly they are not worth your time and effort. You would be too good for them. Couldn't care less what he thinks at this point. Oh. Just letting you know _EW_ See? That's *exactly* what I am talking about. This is what also attracts so many others to be jackasses to you. I am not doing this in public to humiliate you...I am trying to get you to see what is going on. Please? I'm not telling you to leave LF at all...but maybe ask that you seriously rethink what you are doing and how... Please? You can take what I have said and you can choose to 1) heed it because I am trying to help you 2) ignore it 3) hate me for it However, I really wish you would just stop and look around--consider what I have tried to tell you. As for everyone else...go ahead and pour on the hate at me--all it means to me is that I have gotten the better of you. To prove a point one way or the other: If there were some equivalent of order 66 to go into effect tomorrow, and fascist tyranny were here all of a sudden, how many of you people here would RATHER see garfield as an ally? How many of you, all differences and disagreements aside, would rather fight the tyranny ALONGSIDE him as opposed to fighting him amidst all the tyranny? Put another way, do you hate Garfield? Why or why not? I'll wait some days before I check back in here to post what I believe it all means. Y'all can help or not help. Whatever. I'll do what I'll do anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 So, we have the amazing Private Messaging system here at LucasForums. It's absolutely stellar for this kinda off-topic personal conversation style of messaging. You should consider it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.