Educating Peace Protestors

[John Berger]

Nice try, Jack. I am constantly amazed at the wordsmithing abilities of liberals. This whole thread is about a joke that was posted that you and some others found offensive. You went so far as to say that there were racial overtones implied in the joke. So now you play the race card. You say you never mentioned human rights. Earth to Jack: This whole thread has devolved to that very topic. Call me all the names you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that you and Max are both doing exactly what you accuse a bunch of the rest of us of doing. Maybe you are a bit more afraid of the fact that there are people out here like me who don't see things your way, which leads to the incredible jump to the conclusion that I and others don't believe in the Constitution. Jack you said it, I didn't. I get very perturbed by being labeled as ignorant, a fact I have made plain for anyone that has read these threads, but it's only a name, Jack. Instead of acknowledging that the articles I referred you to are very solid in the background of the Middle East because they are from a Middle Easterner, you choose to resort to the ignorant word. Well Jack, guess what:



Sticks and stones will break my bones, but liberals calling me names will never hurt me.



I live to skewer your sacred cows and I am enjoying this to much.

 

[jthorpe]

Originally posted by John Berger

Nice try, Jack. I am constantly amazed at the wordsmithing abilities of liberals.

Who here is a liberal? I hate to tell ya, but I am totally conservative. I vote Republican whenever I feel it's appropriate, as in the case with Bush. I am a member of the RNC and donate whenever I have extra money to give. The difference between you and me is that I support the Constitution also without condition. It's obviously that you guys only support it when it agrees with what you think. Give it up John.

This whole thread is about a joke that was posted that you and some others found offensive.

I never said it was offensive, I said it was stupid. You should be able to understand the difference. The problem with stupid jokes like this is that "Many a truth is said in jest. " This appears to be the case here. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

You went so far as to say that there were racial overtones implied in the joke. So now you play the race card.

Wrong again John. I never said anything about racial overtones. I never once mentioned race in this thread. I think it's kind of humorous that you keep attempting to put words in my mouth instead of taking what I say literally. Read my posts very carefully and you'll find that I support the Constitution 100%. I have said it over and over but you always seem to skip that, and attempt to argue points that are completely irrelevant.

You say you never mentioned human rights. Earth to Jack: This whole thread has devolved to that very topic.

This whole thread started with a stupid joke. The topic of a thread is always evolving so what you say again, is irrelevant.

Call me all the names you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that you and Max are both doing exactly what you accuse a bunch of the rest of us of doing.

I'm making observations John. Again, you should be able to know the difference if you are as intelligent as you say you are.

Maybe you are a bit more afraid of the fact that there are people out here like me who don't see things your way,

You're free to express how you feel John. If I see what I think is fault in your opinion, I am going to express that. Unfortunately, even if you knew you were wrong, I doubt you would ever admit it. Most people are very insecure of being proven incorrect as I think may be the case with you. Hence the reason you're arguing points that are irrelevant instead of answering my points, or responding to the points about the constitution.

which leads to the incredible jump to the conclusion that I and others don't believe in the Constitution.

I never said you didn't believe in the Constitution. I said that you appear to only agree with it when it supports your views, yet those idiots who are protesting don't deserve the same Constitutional protection.



(all of your other stuff snipped)



I think we should agree to disagree on this one since I don't think you're going to answer my points anyway.

 

[John Berger]

Jack, I am answering your points. I have not dodged one issue that you have thrown at me. By the way, I never made a claim to any level of intelligence so I will take it as a compliment from you that what I have posted suggests intelligence, even though you disagree with me. Thank you. I rarely do point by point rebuttal on any type of Internet forum. It's to complicated and the feeling and conviction are hard to get through with typed words. That's your style and that's fine. I prefer to do as you have seen here, which is more broad in scope. For me, this whole topic comes under that broader scope which in this case will define where, as a country, we will go. I am not threatened by the arena of ideas or exchanging views. What I do worry about is the mis-characterization of my views because they fall into a certain pre-defined category. In this particular case my views, at the very least, offend you. Words mean things, Jack and that is really my over-riding point with all of this. You made the association of ignorance, hypocrisy and arrogance by the choice of sides you took, the words you used and the ideas that you conveyed with those words. I never told you to shut up, did I? The worst thing that I called you was a liberal, I think. Anything else you may have inferred or taken by implication, I stand by. What's good for me is good for you as well. There just seems to be an air of inferiority that is conveyed upon those who disagree with you over this thread and the other one that has really been hot. That is what I most vehemently disagree with. And you are right, we just must agree to disagree. We are on the same side because we're both Americans and we want to see the best for our country. Where we disagree, at least under the present circumstances, is how to get there.

 

[DRR-24V]

Mad Max And CF-I Done You Wrong !!

I have been bothered about my post where I used the word PINKO and inferred you guy's were in the same class as Fonda and Donahue. I would not want someone saying that about me if I could not physically get ahold of them. I would hate to think anyone who drove a Dodge Diesel would be in their league. I have been to many countries, seen deplorable living conditions, and hate to hear this country compared to Nazi Germany. It sounded to me like you guy's thought we brought this on ourselves. We did not. ! I will probably never agree with either of you (unless it's about a Dodge) but what I said was not called for. I am sorry.

 

[jthorpe]

Don,



A class act post.



Jack

 

[Max340]

John, apparent condescention means what it says..... apparent means (according to Websters, I don't know that you think it means) that which may be seen, evident. So if it is "apparent" in may be seen, it is evident. Now, if you want to redefine the word "apparent", go for it. In the mean time, I'll take it at Websters value and figure you meant that my "condescention" could be seen and was evident. "Apparently" I read exactly what the word meant, and you are still searching for a definition. As such, I read what you wrote, did you write what you meant to say?



Class warfare? Did you READ this article? It plainly states the top three people in the al Qaida organization come from wealth and upper class families. All three are well educated, another sign of the upper class. And the first article PLAINLY and SUCCINCTLY states that since bin Laden cannot overthrow the ruling parties in the Islamic world, he has turned his resentment to us.



Its not class at all, but the same old thing; Muslims want their world to be run and supported by Islamic rule, not Christian. They percieve the U. S. as a bunch of Christians who are using their rulers as puppets. Go figure, its been true to some degree or another for decades now. No, its not class warfare, its religious warfare. Its bin Laden's version of the Crusades. And this version, like the Crusades themselves, will fail as well.



In the second article, you picked up the mention of the wealth of America. But you seem to have missed the fact that it was the SYMBOL not the WEALTH that Ajami was referencing. Did you miss the second symbol he mentioned, that of our "national might"? Indeed, Ajami uses the word "emblematic", pointing directly to the fact that the targets were symbols of America.



He goes one to note the "socio-economic ills", but he notes it in reference to an "alibi", meaning that the war is not about class, but about who is thought to control their governments with undue influence. And given some of the examples Ajami notes, it is not a far fetched notion to think these spoiled brats are on the right track, IF you are one of those they hold entranced.



You can be as "perturbed" as you want at being labelled "ignorant," no one called you that. However, it is evident that you not only misconstrued what the writer of those two articles said, but totally failed to read some of the words I wrote before you labelled me. As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it. And BTW, if names will never hurt you, stop acting so hurt about being called "ignorant" when it didn't happen.



Don, no offense taken, I brush most of this stuff off and move on. Since you bring it up, let me clarify my comparison to Nazi Germany. I noted it because we as a country face the same choices in the same situation as did Germany of the 1930's. Comments calling for any sort of curtailment of rights scare me, because Germany MADE that choice in the 1930's. I firmly believe that our government will make better choices. BUT, we must guard against making the wrong choice. In no way did I mean to say we were fascist.



Further, I do not believe, in any way shape or form, that we brought this attack on ourselves, that we deserved it, or that the perpetrators should get away with it. Simply put, we need to know our adversary well enough to not only eliminate his way of thinking, but to insure that others never think the same of our nation.



Ditto what Jack said. I appreciate your apology, but I don't think it was necessary. You have a right to say what you think, whether I agree or not. Hopefully I have explained my words better. And yes, I consider the act of driving a large diesel powered truck as one of the privilidges and rights we enjoy as an Americans who work our tails off to support family, country, and ideals.



(I can't even spell "national" correctly... jeez. )

 

[John Berger]

Apparent by any other definition is still apparent

No Max, I didn't read the article You haven't figured out by now that I don't read?!? You have only made the charge umpteen number of times in this thread. And why have you made that charge? Because I don't agree with you. And again, Max, you choose to pick the part of the argument, in this case -- the definition of apparent, that best serves your purpose. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines apparent as follows:



apparent: 1 : open to view : VISIBLE 2 : clear or manifest to the understanding 3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind 4 : having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate 5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.



Max, it's number five that I had in mind when I chose the phrase "apparent condescension". I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you fumbled the ball away again. Thanks for helping to prove my point. Take care and enjoy your life. This has been educational and not to much fun







jthorpe - I don't care if you are a Republican. The argumentative and reasoning abilities you have used in this thread resemble those of a liberal.



This has been fun, but fruitless. Time to move on. It's tough having a battle of wits with unarmed people.



That's a joke, by the way - in case I didn't read what you typed... uhh, in case you didn't type what I read... uhh... whatever. Oh, OK I got it now, In case I didn't know what I was typing cuz I can't read and I'm ignant. hehehehe



cya later fellas. And watch out for us, we're everywhere and we're just waiting to take over and make you all recite the Pledge of Allegience and say the Lord's Prayer and burn books... . But only in a manner that we think is appropriate No jokes will be allowed, either.

 

[jthorpe]

Re: Apparent by any other definition is still apparent

Originally posted by John Berger

No Max, I didn't read the article You haven't figured out by now that I don't read?!? You have only made the charge umpteen number of times in this thread. And why have you made that charge? Because I don't agree with you.

I would tend to believe that he made that charge because you either did not comprehend it well, or you didn't read it. I'm very curious how you came to the conclusion that the attacks were because of class envy. Max is dead on with his reasoning for the attacks.

And again, Max, you choose to pick the part of the argument, in this case -- the definition of apparent, that best serves your purpose. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines apparent as follows:



apparent: 1 : open to view : VISIBLE 2 : clear or manifest to the understanding 3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind 4 : having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate 5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.

Who cares? It's another irrelevant point that you seem to focus on, rather than the real issues.

Max, it's number five that I had in mind when I chose the phrase "apparent condescension". I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you fumbled the ball away again. Thanks for helping to prove my point. Take care and enjoy your life. This has been educational and not to much fun

If it were educational for you, then you would argue the real points instead of once again, skating around the subject.

jthorpe - I don't care if you are a Republican. The argumentative and reasoning abilities you have used in this thread resemble those of a liberal.

No, the arguments I have presented in this case have been from a pure conservative point of view. A point of view which respects the Constitution of this country, even when people do things that I hate. Hate to tell you John, but you can't selectively apply the Constitution to only those things that you agree with, which many of the folks on here try and do. I'm conservative, but I am also a realist. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

This has been fun, but fruitless.

Above, you said it's not too much fun. Now what is it? Again, contradicting yourself and making irrelevant points. This has definately been fruitless.

Time to move on.

Yes definately, please do, so we don't have to keep correcting you.

It's tough having a battle of wits with unarmed people.

I agree, but maybe you'll be able to get some ammo at the local gun shop eh? Until then, we'll assume that you have raised the white flag since you just keep backing into a corner.

That's a joke, by the way - in case I didn't read what you typed... uhh, in case you didn't type what I read... uhh... whatever. Oh, OK I got it now, In case I didn't know what I was typing cuz I can't read and I'm ignant. hehehehe

In english now?

cya later fellas.

Bye bye, thanks for playing.

And watch out for us, we're everywhere and we're just waiting to take over and make you all recite the Pledge of Allegience and say the Lord's Prayer and burn books... . But only in a manner that we think is appropriate No jokes will be allowed, either.

Another ridiculous statement that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It appears that you have invoked article B of Godwins law upon yourself. I think once you read up on Godwins law, you'll understand what I'm saying... Good luck.



Jack

 

[John Berger]

Originally posted by Max340





Class warfare? Did you READ this article? It plainly states the top three people in the al Qaida organization come from wealth and upper class families. All three are well educated, another sign of the upper class. And the first article PLAINLY and SUCCINCTLY states that since bin Laden cannot overthrow the ruling parties in the Islamic world, he has turned his resentment to us.



Yes Max, I got that. He is wealthy. He is also using that wealth to exploit the poor into participating in his narcissistic little crusade. That is very similar to the tactics of the political left in this country. Instead of inciting a violent jihad, they have achieved tenure in our higher institutions of learning where they pass on their politically correct poison to our youth. (semi-random rumination: This was addressed earlier, I am curious as to who really reads what around here). Lyndon Johnson's Great Society has created a whole new generation of people who have been taught that we must look to government for the answer, instead of falling back on rugged individualism and self-reliance. There is no place where this is more evident than in the black community, where the illegitimacy birth rate has skyrocketed, since the implementation of the afore-mentioned Great Society. Just listen to the typical Democrat Party tirades against tax cuts. Max, just because you read a different message in Mr. Ajami's article does not mean that I didn't read it or don't understand it. I just don't see it and act on it the same way you do. And I don't need you to tell me of the error of my ways because I don't see things your way. But alas, I have said that so many times, that I do feel that is it pointless to say it again.



No, its not class warfare, its religious warfare. Its bin Laden's version of the Crusades. And this version, like the Crusades themselves, will fail as well.



It's religious warfare, alright. Have you ever studied the Inquisition, Max? The very rich, in this case, the church of Rome and the royalty that ruled the states she controlled, exploited the very poor, under the guise of a holy cause. We could say jihad, to emphasize a point. This "crusade" as you labelled it will fail, but you will not like what is going to replace it anymore than you like the present situation.





You can be as "perturbed" as you want at being labelled "ignorant," no one called you that. However, it is evident that you not only misconstrued what the writer of those two articles said, but totally failed to read some of the words I wrote before you labelled me. As they say, if the shoe fits, wear it. And BTW, if names will never hurt you, stop acting so hurt about being called "ignorant" when it didn't happen.





I'm not perturbed or hurt. You flatter yourself if you believe that this topic has led me to such feelings. I merely pointed out your ostentatious efforts to characterize people who don't agree with you. You also lecture to much, which is akin to finger pointing. That is why I continue this argument with you and also why I believe you are wrong in your assessments of me and others. As in numerous other instances on this thread, I will simply point out to you that you implied ignorance and intolerance simply because I didn't see things your way, and you still persist in doing so. When you can convince me that that is not what you are doing, we may actually be able to participate in a conversation where we agree, but somehow I doubt that you really want to do that. I am reminded of people I have known, by you. They never could take being wrong. No, let me correct that. They couldn't deal with people who could not be convinced to see things according to their(your) worldview. You sound intelligent Max. Stop trying to use it to put other people down. Trust me, I am not hurt. I am fine.





Finally, to you Jack. You really need to get a life and a sense of humor. You liberals are just to wound up. And on the topic of contradicting myself on having to much fun I would suggest you take a wordsmithing course from your cohort Max. I said I wasn't having "to much fun", as opposed to having no fun at all. Jeez... and you guys accuse me of not reading.

 

[jthorpe]

Yes Max, I got that. He is wealthy.

Then again, explain your class envy statement. Instead of admitting it's hogwash, you keep skating around it as usual. Come on John. Lets hear it.

He is also using that wealth to exploit the poor into participating in his narcissistic little crusade.

I wouldn't call it "little" What you say is true, but not for the reasons you believe. He has started this in the name of religion, not because of class envy as you stated previously. They are so enraged at our "foreign policy" that they are willing to die, to kill us! I personally could care less what they think of our policy, and I also think they need to be stopped in their tracks.

That is very similar to the tactics of the political left in this country. Instead of inciting a violent jihad, they have achieved tenure in our higher institutions of learning where they pass on their politically correct poison to our youth.

I don't disagree with you on this.

Lyndon Johnson's Great Society has created a whole new generation of people who have been taught that we must look to government for the answer, instead of falling back on rugged individualism and self-reliance.

Agreed.

There is no place where this is more evident than in the black community,

Whatever. I see it in a hell of a lot more places than just in the "black" community. Try our colleges. Almost all of them think the same way. Guess what? They're a bunch of white kids, who can't think on their own and can't live without government either.

where the illegitimacy birth rate has skyrocketed, since the implementation of the afore-mentioned Great Society. Just listen to the typical Democrat Party tirades against tax cuts.

I agree about the tax cuts. I also think having a "surplus" is a damn joke.

It's religious warfare, alright. You ever studied the Inquisition, Max? The very rich, in this case, the church of Rome and the royalty that ruled the states she controlled, exploited the very poor, under the guise of a holy cause. We could say jihad, to emphasize a point. This "crusade" as you labelled it will fail, but you will not like what is going to replace it anymore than you like the present situation.

So NOW you say it's a religious war. What is it John? Is it class envy or is it religion? Make up your mind.

Finally, to you Jack. You really need to get a life and a sense of humor.

If you only knew me, you would find me quite funny. However, the joke was stupid, and my opinion is that it's not funny at all. I can joke with the rest of 'em. When I see something I don't think is funny, then I'll let you know, as is the case with the stupid joke in the beginning of this thread. ME get a life? Come on now John. I feel some tension here. If you're going to insult me, at least do a good job at it. Remember, I own a dodge CTD, so I must have some kind of life, right?

You liberals are just to wound up.

See, you're proving my point again. You either have a comprehension problem, or you're not reading what I'm posting. It's funny, you have yet to argue one of my points. You keep skating around the issues and calling me a liberal, but I bet you 20 bucks that I am just as, or more conservative then you are. Have you donated to the RNC lately? I have. I am also a member of Rush 24x7. Yet, to you I am a liberal. You must be so far right wing that the bird can't fly straight.

And on the topic of contradicting myself on having to much fun I would suggest you take a wordsmithing course from your cohort Max. I said I wasn't having "to much fun", as opposed to having no fun at all. Jeez... and you guys accuse me of not reading.

Maybe while I'm taking the wordsmithing class, you can take the spelling class across the hall. How 'bout that?



Now John, go get your wife to defend you, since you can't seem to argue the points without skating around the issues, maybe she could be of some help to you at this point.



Jack

 

[John Berger]

It's both, Jack. Class warfare and religion, hand in hand, have played pivotal, if not causal roles in just about every war throughout the 6000 or so years of human history. Jack, you really need to get out more. Please do not confuse your willingness to continue an argument over my ability to understand you or Max. You both can have the last word, of which I promise you I am not going to respond to. I'm getting dizzy going around in this circle which has no end. I enjoyed it, but it has lasted a bit to long.

 

[Max340]

No John, I make that observation because the "facts" you claim to have gotten from those articles are rather easily proven wrong by the same article.



As to the definition, "apparent" STILL means you observed it, while you claim afterwards that maybe it wasn't there at all, and perhaps you did not say what you APPARENTLY did. Maybe its best not to be so vague.



As to having a battle of wits with unarmed people, perhaps you should look at this again, and start reading what is said. Its clear to at least three of us that many of you aren't reading all of what is said. Further, being "armed" in this situation is NOT rebuttal by insult, but by fact and proven conclusion. So far, you and your cohorts have yet to address a rebuttal with facts, instead preferring to lay aside any armament you might have in favor of thumbing your nose and calling names. To each his own.



I fail to see where black lifestyle, liberals of wealth, or Lyndon B. Johnson have ANYTHING to do with why bin Laden and his associates attacked our country. Perhaps you can explain where this pointless and unrelated bit of rant came from?



Not only did I read a different message in Ajami's article, I pointed out where you were wrong in your conclusions using the article itself. As such, since the article itself contradicts your conclusions, it is hard to say it is simply my angle on the article.



Since you bring up the Inquisition as a comparison, perhaps you can explain what religious hierarchy is traveling from town to town using fixed trials as a method of gaining wealth in the present day? Further, maybe you can explain why the Inquisition was designed by the Catholic Church to induce fear and compliance in members/followers of the Catholic church, but the acts of September eleventh have NOTHING to do with Islamic law being enforced on followers of the Mulsim faith, let alone gaining wealth for that organization. In short, your parallel is poor at best.



You aren't perturbed or hurt today? You were yesterday. Glad you changed your mind. I have never characterized people who disagree with me, I merely challenge them with their own facts, asking them for proof. Instead, you reply with characterizations of your own, and drivel about the kind of person I am. To each his own.

 

[John Berger]

So now you're feeling my pain, Max? To quote an adage: If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand. And I have sincerely tried to explain to you why I feel the way I do, but to no avail. Max, you always have to get the last word in, don't you? You must be an academic or a school teacher. Consider your last post to be the final words on this subject. I applaud you for your efforts, however wrong or misguided they may be. Where would we be without you, the haughty, high-minded Max, to challenge us on what you find fault with. You are a true piece of work. Your major shortcoming is your inability to listen -- but that's enough. As for your display of ignorance (yes, I used THAT word) on the similarities between the church of Rome and bin Laden, I have one word for you to ponder: TALIBAN!! Or were you unaware of just how oppressive they are? -- in the name of religion I might add. What the church of Rome achieved (note the past tense) is what the Taliban and bin Laden are trying to implement not only in the Muslim world, but upon the entire world. The rest of us infidels will have a choice between conversion or death -- which is similar to tactics employed during the Crusades. And I'm being charitable -- we may have no choice at all, should they win. Hmmmm!!! Is the light coming on yet, Max? Oh, I'm sorry, I must not have read what you typed. Doh!! I've been doing too much of that, lately.

 

[jthorpe]

I told you to get your wife to help you John. You're not cutting it. There, I had the last word!

 

[John Berger]

No you didn't, I did.

 

[nps]

Go away for a week and the post turns from a funny joke into yet another wide-ranging philosophical deabte.



Protesters don't kill soldiers - government policy does. Hummmm - wonder what influences government policy?



Lighten up y'all.

 

[John Berger]

Originally posted by nps

Go away for a week and the post turns from a funny joke into yet another wide-ranging philosophical deabte.



Protesters don't kill soldiers - government policy does. Hummmm - wonder what influences government policy?



Lighten up y'all.

Good advice... Advice which I try to always take, but if I haven't been, I am as of now.

 

[John Berger]

Testing

Testing.