
Journal the_mad_poster's Journal: Little Green Footballs Is Afraid of Me (Reposted) 84
The little babies were too scared to bother coming over here with few exceptions. They had to hide on their site to whine about me.
I guess when the best thing you can come up with to respond to is the knock about printer cartridges (which, ironically, is a stab at a certain Mr. Bill Clinton) it isn't in your best interest to come out of your echo chamber and actually attempt to take someone on.
(reposted to disable AC comments)
lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
If you believe in learning and intellectual honesty I urge you spend some time looking at the headlines and reading the comments on lgf. Start with the faq and then read the threads in and around 9/11/2001.
I used to hold your beliefs and voted democrat my entire life, until 2001.
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
-jg
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
Preferences > Comments
Near the bottom of the page you can change your posting prefernce to be "Plain Text" so you don't have to use HTML whitespace.
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
Do you want to have a discussion about why you are wrong about so many things?
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
And after you realize that your political opponents are not stupid, or evil or brainwashed, we can continue.
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
So...by linking to a page that complains about liberals unfairly generalizing about conservatives, then proceeds to unfairly generalize about liberals, we are now to have a basis for discussion?
And after you realize that your political opponents are not stupid, or evil or brainwashed, we can continue.
Well, at least that much we agree on. May I also add "elitist", "snobbish", "amoral", "immoral", "pro-terrorist", or whatever other labels seem to be fair dinkum for anyone to the left of Bush
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
Considering the comments made on this thread and the one on lgf I'v concluded that mad_poster does believe that conservatives and folks that oppose his 'good' vision of progress are bad and evil.
I'd like to lower the temperature of debate and argue policies on their merits.
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
So would I. But I don't exactly see LGF as having contributed towards that goal in any way -- unless latching onto printer cartridges is a highbrow form of political debate I wasn't previously aware of.
I could also quite effortlessly reel of a list of rhetorical injustices real and imagined towards those of us of a more leftish persuasion. But that doesn't raise the level of discussion -- it just cements it in the sewer.
"Li
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
I think I've commented elsewhere about chips and shoulders and such. Get some skin or something, and recognize that political rhetoric can be heated without meaning anything personal.
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
However, when one is started by a Mr. Charles Johnson calling me names, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the conversation, as you might imagine. When I've been accused of being everything from anti-American to inbred before I'm even made aware I'm the subject of discussion, it makes it a little worse, you see? Not that I'm complaining - fire away. Just don't get all pissy when you're
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
The best thing to do is not to feed the trolls.
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
Hmm... I don't think there's any moral highground here. Everyone who posted outside of Slashdot in this extravagent display of cross-cultural shit flinging is pretty much in the same sewer.
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
Why do I have this feeling you were always the banker when you played Monopoly?
By the way, it's news to me that Prague is in "Deutschland". (Referring to your photo album [mac.com].) The locals wouldn't take too kindly to suggestions to the contrary.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
If you guys want to have an argument (not just talking points), I'd be happy to.
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
I'll remember that when I visit California and post my "México" photo album.
They would be part of Germany if it wasn't for us and the Russians, so I guess that's good.
Funny, we'd be part of the British Empire if it wasn't for the French. But hey, we're all pals now, right?
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:1)
Too bad, the cheese and champagne world will never be the same.
Re:lgf is not scared of you. (Score:2)
OMFG!!!1111oneoneone
Bwahahahahahahaa-my sides! They hurt!
Dude (Score:2)
Look at one of the comments (#110) -
#26 Florida Heat
What's wrong with copyright laws?
And what is the DMCA?
I mean -- these guys do not _know_ what DMCA is, and support copyright laws (the current versions of which are a a perversion of their original intents).
Bah, you're arguing with folks like this?
What's WRONG with you!?
Re:Dude (Score:1)
Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
"Iron Fist"
Okay, these people are a piece of work, but what are you going to do. Let's review, shall we?
Bush Backers are complete morons because:
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
2. The war in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Read World War IV [commentarymagazine.com]
3. Name one instance of someone losing their civil rights due to the patriot act? Just one?
4. Why redefine marriage? Read The End of Marriage in Scandinavia [weeklystandard.com]
"In other words, if you support Bush, you are completely ignorant about how the wor
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for the minor detail that the Romans never abolished or reduced taxation: they leveled it out. Sort of a proto-flat tax, if you will.
The war in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Read World War IV
Ah. Random propaganda links as a basis of discussion. Whee, let's link to Chomsky to even out the yin and yang a little.
Anyway, "part of the War or Terror" is neither here nor there. The idea is setting priorities. Iraq wasn't a high priority (what exactly would they have done?). Iran and North Korea clearly are. Now we're stuck in the Iraqi tar baby and can't deal as effectively with Iran and North Korea as we'd like -- and they know it.
Why redefine marriage? Read The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
Try reading a load of tripe? Such as:
Well, that's odd -- and here I thought allowing two people who, you know, love each other get hitched sent the signal that marriage means something.
Name one instance of someone losing their civil rights due to the patriot act? Just one?
Funny that even the Bush Administration wants to rescind parts of the Patriot Act as being too restrictive.
Really? Please list the foreign policy success's of the Clinton Administration then. Or of any Democratic administration since Truman, if you please.
Cuban Missile Crisis. Ending the Bosnian war. Ending Serb oppression of Kosovo. Preventing an all-out war in Macedonia. Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel. Just to name a few off the top of my head.
Now to balance the Force, name a few Republican ones for us. And I'll even happily note some Democratic failures -- if you name some Republican ones, too. Isn't being fair fun?
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
Actually taxation went up and down. This edu site [lmu.edu] and this site [unrv.com] make it plain that the Romans were aware of the burden of taxation and makes the case that the burden of taxation upon those that could most influence the economy played a direct role in the demise of the Roman Empire.
"Ah. Random propaganda links as a basis of discussion."
So you read a 40 page art
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
I think that the possibility of a terrorist group receiving WMD's from Saddam was worth going to war. You obviously disagree. Iran and North Korea are different and less urgent threats and solutions are being sought.
You can't just make that sort of claim and expect it to back itself. Weapons inspections show no WMDs in Iraq. Three reports have all come to the same conclusion: no weapons, couldn't get them, no threat.
Iran and N. Korea are both known to be working on nuclear programs that could produce bo
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
Regime Strategic Intent [cia.gov]
from
Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraqs WMD [cia.gov]
"How is that less of a threat?"
Because at least we know of it, during the previous administration NK lied
about their program and the admistration believed them.
And how exactly should we stop Iran and NK, more talks, more agreements,
more UN resolutions?
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Because at least we know of it....
Excuse me? So... everything we don't know.... is a threat?
I sincerely hope that's not what you meant, because if you did, and I'm not just misunderstanding, that's the most ridiculous thing I've seen yet. I'll wait to actually respond until we've clarified this point to make sure I understand what you're getting at.
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
Excuse me? So... everything we don't know.... is a threat?
No, being lied to is not something we don't know.
The Clinton Administration negotiated the Agreed Framework [ceip.org] and announced that NK had given up it's Nuclear ambitions.
In 2002 the US found out the NK had lied and cheated and had kept operating a Nuclear Weapons program.
Better to know the truth than trust in a lie.
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
You're not making sense. Iraq: all ACCURATE indications were that they posed no threat. Everyone but Bush, Blair, and cronies said so. Solution? Go in with guns blazing. Result? Totally fucking wrong.
Iran, NK: we KNOW they want bombs, we KNOW they're working on the capability to get them, we KNOW they will use them if given the opportunity. How is knowing that they're a direct threat LESS of a threat?
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
all ACCURATE indications were that they posed no threat.
Every intellegence service including Jordan and Egypt believed that Saddam had and would use WMD's, read Tommy Franks book. In 1998 the official US policy towards Iraq became regime change, in 2002 Democrats including Kerry voted in support of the Iraq war. Iraq shot at our planes patroling the Northern and Southern no fly zones on a near weekly basis. The UN oil for Food program was completely perverted and used to finance S
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
One theory among many -- though actually the large numbers of cross Germans coming across the borders, as well as widespread famine, just might have had something to do with it as well.
Not to mention you claimed "the Romans le
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Ronald Reagan, for all the things you COULD have listed as successes, did NOT win the cold war. He just happened to be the lucky guy in office when the cold war came crashing down because 50 years of soviet mis-management of their own economy finally caught up with them. US Policy across ALL of those 50 years did help bring that end, but no one President can take credit for it. Any who c
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
Years of SALT negotiations got us treaties that the Soviets cheated at. Years of diplomacy got us Soviet expansionism all over the planet. These policies stopped under Reagan and by 89 the Soviet Union crumbled.
Want a biased opinion, ask Natan Sharansky and other Soviet prisoners who had the largest impact in winning the col
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Yeah, they were cowering in fear of his Mighty Acting Powers.
Give it up.
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
Reagan lived through WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War
but..
Reagan seems to be the only Hollywood actor that the left belittles and denigrates?
Read his own words..
Reagan: A Life in Letters [amazon.com]
Reagan, In His Own Hand [amazon.com]
As a pers
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
Do you consider Muslim terrorist to be ultra-conservatives?
Just exactly who do you think attacked the WTC and the Pentagon?
Please be specific.
Do you realize the difference between the message and the messengers?
Logical Fallacies [datanation.com]
Please take a good philosophy class. It will help you make good arguments and stay on point.
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
And - ah - yea, the muslim extremists that attacked are pretty damn conservative.
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Which part of "extreme fundamentalist islamofascism" do you not see as ultra-conservative, in their own cultural context?
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
All parts.
Then please clearly identify the relevant cultural context when using the term 'ultra-conservative'
In common American usage conservative or ultra-conservative has nothing in common with "extreme fundamentalist islamofascism"
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
But
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
No they aren't. They're fundamentalists and they're authoritarian. They're not conservatives.
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
I do begin to see your point, however. Vermin... such as yourself... might just be better off being exterminated.
Here, eat your own words:
Fundamentalist Islam is simply the conservative wing of Islam, just as fundamentalist Christianity is the conservative wing of Christianity.
Farther down the page:
Most Middle Eastern terrorists are probably fundamentalist Muslims...
From here [religioustolerance.org].
Commence bullshit write-off of source based on some nonsensical, perceiv
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
"Most Middle Eastern terrorists are probably fundamentalist Muslims, but they share little with their fellow fundamentalists. They represent an extremist, radical wing of fundamentalist Islam, which is composed of people who believe that the Islamic state must be imposed on the people from above, using violent action if necessary."
The problem, aside from the fact that you're a fucking moron, is that you're confusing political conservatism with religious conservatism.
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Let's try again. "ultra conservative" in American context is extreme, commonly fundamentalist, and has a very strong authoritarian stance that at least borders on, if not crosses over into, fascism. The cops always get the benefit of the doubt--that's exactly what you need for a fascist police state. The cult of the corporation is also a co-symptom with fascism, though of course d
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
My Dad lived through all of those except WW1, and he served in the military too. Doesn't mean he won the cold war either.
Reagan seems to be the only Hollywood actor that the left belittles and denigrates?
You need to re-read what I said. YOU implied that he started his assault on the cold war in the forties. Here, read again: "Ronald Reagan opposed communists since the mid forties." A public position against communism in the 40's is hardly
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Actually, I would like to take this opportunity to claim that I won the Cold War.
(You're welcome.)
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
So did most Democrats. Truman, George Kennan, McNamara, Kennedy, Acheson, Albright, Brzeznski, Johnson...
While the left and the democrats were busy with detente and realpolitick
Uh, how are Democrats responsible for detente, which was Kissenger's idea [sandiego.edu], or Realpolitik [wikipedia.org], which was an idea also espoused by Kissenger and Nixon, and led to the rapprochement with China? In fact, Kissenger's Realpolitik was a noticeable weakening of Democrat containment
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
I chose bad examples. Thanks for pointing this out. Time for more research.
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
Looking more closely at your statements...
Lets look at the wikipedia entry for Détente [wikipedia.org]
Seems that the US warmed up and acted nice, while the Soviets continued their expansionist ways and cheated at the existing SALT agreements.
SALT may have been Nixon's thing, but SALT II [wikipedia.org] was Carter's thing.
Realpolitik [wikipedia.org] "(German for "politics of reality") is foreign politics based on practical
concerns rather than theory or ethics."
When opposing Reagan, the Democrats were more than happy to espouse
R
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
That's beside the point -- I'm not arguing the merits of detente. I'm asking you: why blame Democrats or "leftists" for it, when it was the policy of Republicans in the Nixon Administration?
SALT may have been Nixon's thing, but SALT II was Carter's thing.
Yes, because Carter at first chose to continue detente (against the advice of many Democrats!) -- and then end
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:1)
We look at the same facts and draw different conclusions.
"Evil" (Score:2)
A curious thing that i've noticed in the past is that i am unable to consider the Soviet Union evil. But neither am i one of those pining for "the good old days." Perhaps i'm too young for these things (i was six years old when the Berlin Wall fell, eight when the Soviet Union broke up). Perhaps i'm simply morally crippled. But i can't see black and white -- all i can see is a sort of K [wikipedia.org]
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
START I was Reagan, START II was Bush, the INF treaty was also Reagan. Your point?
Seems to me that it was mostly Republican Presidents who wanted to disarm.
Oh, and lest we forget Carter was considered a hawk back in the day. He was for the Trident program, the Los Angeles class attack subs, and the Nimitz class carrier program.
He was skeptical of the value of the B1 bomber (particularly the initial version as designed) and the MX missle
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
No, the fact that is full of lies and misrepresentations. Yes, I live in Scandinavia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Eh? The grandparent stated "The war in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror", which is a non-argument. In effect he is arguing that Iraq is "part of" the so-called "War on Terror", therefore it was right to attack Iraq when and how we did. One does not lead to the other.
The article he linked to doesn't even back up the point he was trying to make, other than to assert that Iraq is a "front" in the w
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Two problems with this, leveling out taxes over time is nothing like a flat-tax. I believe that is what is being discussed here. Second, as pointed out later, the tax rates did fluxuate depending on emperor.
Iraq wasn't a high priority (what exactly would they have done?).
It isn't even a matter of priority. I don't imagine a president sitting around and saying "I'v
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know what drugs he's on, but they seem like a lot of fun. I don't have any non-Swedish links to give you, but he's right that we're looking more on marriage as a religious thing. The rest is hogwash - we're marrying in droves and divorce rates are slipping. There was a dip in marriage rates in the 90s, but that had a lot of other explanations (some of which he lists), it had nothing to do with gay marriage.
The war in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror.
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:3, Informative)
I live in Scandinavia (Norway). The twat who wrote that article knows nothing about Scandinavian society, and has probably never been in Scandinavia or talked to Scandinavians (except for maybe the bible-thumpers, who make up a minority, and are seen upon as a joke here). As for the gays, their rate of breaking up a civil union is lower than the rate of heterosexual divorce.
I really wonder what kind of drugs the author was on when he wrote this article.
Re:Cool; I made it, too (Score:2)
Little green snotballs (Score:2)
Long ago I decided to ignore sites like LGF, FreeRepublic, and the idiotarians. If you want conservative and/or rightwing sites where a somewhat higher standard of discourse prevails they are out there. Tacitus is one.
As they say, don't feed the trolls.
Goddammit (Score:2)
Re:Goddammit (Score:2)
Re:Goddammit (Score:2)
Apparently, I'm the "trigger-happy nerd" that "took a slam" at little boogers?
Some people take themselves too seriously, I think...
Heh, these are people who advocate gun ownership and education? I guess the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to those who have differing political views from them, and who might want to protect themselves from extremists?
Of course, their boorish, psychotic comments have only proved my point: American citizens should arm themselves to protect thems
Sincere Apology to Booger "Community" (Score:2)
See: ten years ago I moved to a part of the country where my interracial marriage and/or judaism would not be the cause for threats of violence - so thinking about defending my family from zealots isn't a regular occurence anymore.
Fortunately, sites like Little Boogers exist to remind me that such hatred and bigotry still e
Re:Sincere Apology to Booger "Community" (Score:2)
It's not hatred and bigotry. They're just stupid people led by a stupid person. This is what happens when technology democratizes free expression of ideas....
...people with stupid ideas get to freely express them.
Poor Mad Poster (Score:2)
Wow, Bubble Girl pwned you [littlegreenfootballs.com].
Is that the best response you could think up? "WTF makes you think I cared about any of that:...?" Its just not fun to watch you get hammered after a wh
Re:Poor Mad Poster (Score:2)
Re:Poor Mad Poster (Score:2)
I give it to Mad Poster who needs some comfort food.