Nickel and Dimed.

Post Reply New Topic

This is not a flame war, this is debate. Because you realize you are not up to the task, you retreat to the position that you are better than continuing your involvement. Weak.



If you were to participate actively in PPR, you would have seen a number of threads where I vehemently disagreed with another poster, but through honest debate, found common ground and reconciled, dare I say "became friends with" those with whom I disagreed. It is not me that is incapable of this, it is you.



You are of course, entitled to your opinion. I view your opinion as regressive and ignorant.



Stated as fact, this is false. There is no inherent right that you refer to.



It is your right, but I find this regrettable. You are no so much raising them "away" from urban influences, so much as teaching them to fear that which is different.



To a certain degree you are correct. You have the right to move wherever you like, choose your friends, and raise your children as you would like. However, you do not have the right to prevent a black family from moving in to the house next to yours. If that bothers you, you have the right to move again.



What you seem to not understand, is that crime has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with poverty.



It is the threat of irrational religiously-minded people. Not the threat of a different race. I am all for destroying the Muslim religion, along with the Jewish religion, and the Christian religion.



"Culture", or a better word "tradition", is not something that I think you should hold dear. We should not be afraid of change. Although certain aspects of a culture may be changed by the integration of many cultures, it is not destroying culture, it is creating a new one. In my view, a better one.



I don't see that for instance, South America has any problem with white people integrating into their culture. If there was a comparable resistance to white integration in South America, I would be just as against that as I am against your position. As for independence movements, you need to realize that South America is heavily controlled by the white world. A country has every right to privatize their resources. Instead, we go in, train armies to topple populist movements, instigate government takeovers, assassinate popular leaders, and institute puppet dictators to support our interests.



I don't see that it is being destroyed. It is just becoming a new version of Europe, and I don't see any problem with that.



Well, that's your opinion. But unfortunately for your viewpoint, you don't get to decide the way the rest of the world decides to move forward. You have the right to control you, not the right to control others.



Ok. You don't have to care what I think. Doesn't bother me, but I hold to the view that it would be better for the world if you didn't reproduce.



And you might get banned for it. I am all for substantive criticism of Obama, I've posted at least twice doing just that. However, I see absolutely no reason to come up with childish nicknames to demean him. He is still a man, and as such is worthy of the common courtesy of calling him by his actual name.



I believe you believe this. However, what I actually mean is that your line of reasoning contains little to no substantive debate. All you do is let your opinions be known and insult anyone who disagrees with them. If you had a strong mind, you would counter those that disagree with substantive, reasonable though, just as I have done. I do not claim to be better than you, but your method of debate is weak, and mine is strong.

You should see the movie Gran Torino if you haven't yet—truly awesome.

VT... Your line of reasoning and methods of debate are much less effective and meaningful than mine. All you seem to be doing is reciting textbook liberal/libertarian rebuttals. You have offered no substantial information or data to back up any points you have made. All I can really tell is that you favor destroying three monotheistic religions, and a world where everyone is the same color and all national and cultural differences have been destroyed. I really don't see anything meaningful in anything you have said besides a pathetic attempt to break down my paragraphs sentence for sentence and make snide little remarks. If you want to live in a meaningless multicultural wasteland, than so be it. If you like change... fine. I find your arguements(the few points you have managed to state clearly,) to be sickening, but I am sure that you find things I have said sickening as well. You can quote "Peace Love Hope" all day, but there is nothing to that.

I have countered your arguements with much more thoughtful reasoning than you have done against mine. I just happen to have a reactionary posture that you disagree with, and it upsets you. My mind is very strong and my convictions are much more solid than are yours.

I would prefer not to live in your world as you would prefer not to live in mine. If you don't value ANY culture or tradition, than what do you value?

I am very much up to the task of "debating" you. I just felt that my ideological stance had already been made manifest and I had little need to continue down that path. I am free to continue to make you look like the @$$ that you really are. It is YOU who is a weak minded libertarian who values nothing and puts his hope in Obama's synthetic multiculturalism.

I have plenty of substantial criticisms of Obama and the Obama bandwagon. However, I am also no fan of most of the Republican politicians, and I actually voted for Kerry in 2004. You won't find a more vehement critic of the Bush Administration than I. Republican presidents have actually done much more for inducing 3rd-world immigration than Democratic presidents.

I have never insulted anyone on this forum on any other forum(except for you.) I merely defend my stances, but I see how you would perceive my defenses as being "insulting" to your stubborness. Really, what you are saying is that you are upset that I substantiate and validate my arguements and not merely succumb to your democratic obeyance. I have given plenty of weight behind things I have said, and have never once attacked another poster. It sounds like you are ticked that I continue to defy you so you feel the need to suggest that I not reproduce. Deep down, you know that I am right.

Ok - some blacks are racists. That fact does nothing to justify racism in general. Some blacks are impolite, but that does not argue for less civility in daily life. Some blacks are Cubs fans, but that takes nothing away from the team of Stan Musial, Lou Brock, Bob Gibson and Albert Pujols.



I went to a black barbershop once when I was in a hurry to get a hair cut. No discrimination. But they specialize in cutting curly Afro hair, and I wasn't really satisfied with the cut. I didn't go back - not because of discrimination, but simply because they don't know the type of cuts I want. It isn't sinister racism - their customer base demands that they specialize in something that doesn't fit me. I suppose that shoe stores that specialize in orthotic styles is discriminatory against the majority of people who don't need those particular styles?? No. You are being hypersensitive.



Not true. There are Italian, French and Greek delis and restaurants, and no one sees that as discriminatory. Because Italian, French and Greek cuisines ARE celebrated without cries of racism. There is no 'white cuisine' per se, although there is a food store near me named "European Groceries" that carries products like Nutella and Menthos and such. No protests from the NAACP or liberal white people. Every spring, I get to celebrate Saint Patrick's day in my favorite Irish Pub - the general public seems to be OK with that. You are being hypersensitive.




I have eaten in soul food restaurants and barbeque joints owned by blacks across much of the south. I can tell you that I have never been refused service, never has anyone done anything to make me feel unwelcome. In some cases, it has been an anonymous experience (get the food and eat it, like many restaurants not owned by blacks), but often, people are quite friendly. I have been to mechanics with most of the signs were in Spanish. Did he curse and spit on the ground when he saw an Anglo drive in his garage? No, he was happy for the business and he worked to build a business relationship. You are being hypersensitive.



Sorry, I can't join in your pity party. I have gotten a college education, found work, bought a house, and raised a family. My daughter has graduated from college and is now working and married. Being white in America is not a liability and has not held me back.

Obviously this is your opinion, but I think it's ridiculous for you to say this. Your "method of debate" is to state your opinions as fact, and insult anyone that disagrees. That's not debate.



I don't see that as the case, but if you are going to make this claim, you need to offer specific examples so I have a chance to comment. Just making broad statements without backing them up shows nothing.



Nor did I need to, it was mostly opinion or matters of philosophy and world-view.



I don't favor destroying them because I understand what that would entail. What I favor is organically removing them from our mindset as humans. But you're right on the second point to a degree, I favor removing that which makes us different so we can learn what makes us the same. I am not advocating that we forget where we came from, in fact, I think there is some importance in remembering just that, but that doesn't mean we can't learn to appreciate new and different things.



If we were having this discussion over drinks, it would be quite different. However, this forum is meant for debate, and in debate, this is how I operate. I also feel that you are the one making the snide remarks (although, admittedly, I am guilty of this to some degree as well).



I don't see that a multicultural world is either meaningless or a wasteland.



Actually, it was "Peace Love Freedom". I didn't say hope, because to be honest, I am a realist. I don't see things changing the way I would like them to. So, while I may espouse these views in a philosophical debate, I am not as naive as perhaps you would imagine me.



This is just not true to any objective standard. While I admit this last post is more thoughtful than the ones preceding it, I don't see that there is anything you have said to reasonably counter what I have said. Just saying "you're wrong...and an idiot" doesn't accomplish that.



Well, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but I do feel a need to counter it. I share your reactionary nature, but I feel that the core of my nature is based on things that most would consider positive, while I feel that the core of your nature (from what I've read so far) is based more on things that most would consider negative. We both see things in the world that we don't like, but my reason for not liking these things is because I love my fellow man, and I view it as hurting our species as a whole. I don't see that your reasons for being reactionary are similarly upstanding.



You appear very hard-headed, but that does not mean you have a strong mind. In my view, if that was the case, you would put forth a greater effort in this thread. As for your convictions, they are obviously solid, but mine are as well, they're just different.



Thing is though, there is a place for you in my world, while I don't see a place for me in yours.



Well, I don't apply reverence to culture or tradition, but I do have much respect for history. I know much about my ancestors, and have great respect for that history. I just don't see a need for this history to put me in a place where the world has to conform to my standards.



Well, in terms of debate, you offered an opening statement, which I countered, but you have not given an adequate response to my counter. You've simply said "that's stupid, you're dumb", while I have countered each of your subsequent posts point by point. If you disagree with me, don't just say that I'm wrong, try and show me why I am wrong.



I have no love for Obama, the man is a fraud in my view. Also, I value many things, they are just different from the things that you value.



I am the same, except that my reasons for being a critic do not involve immigration. I can't really get behind any politician, I even had significant criticism of Ron Paul.



But you haven't really. What you have done is not defend, you have merely continued in your emotional reactionary streak.



I'm not in the slightest bothered by your insults, to me it's just petty. And while I am a stubborn person, my nature is inherently agnostic. If you were to offer up superior reasoning, I would switch to your line of thought. I am not taking the position that your defenses are insulting because I am stubborn, I am taking the position that your defenses are insulting because they are.



I'm not upset at all. You haven't substantiated or validated anything. My "democratic obeyance"? I'm actually curious what you mean by this phrase. In my estimation, I don't fall in line with any political view.



Just ignore your insults, they don't matter to me and get us off track. You have given no weight whatsoever to what you have said. Whereas I have gone point by point and refuted your statements.



Again, I'm not upset at all. I also don't feel that you are "defying" me, as I am not your king and have given you no orders. My suggestion for you to not reproduce was admittedly reactionary, but it bears no great defeat for the rest of my reasoning.



That's a rather arrogant statement. Let me be quite honest with you. Deep down, I know that you are a human being. It seems clear to me that there are things in this world that have made you very angry. I sympathize with this. However, I view the conclusions you come to based on this anger to be very negative.

Being multiethnic myself (White/Asian/Middle Eastern) with a Polynesian/Asian fiancee, I obviously have no issue with multiculturalism. I have good friends of every ethnic background and culture. However, I understand the fact that everyone has personal preferences when it comes to who their friends are and who they find attractive. Subsequently, as long as someone doesn't attempt to enforce their views on the rest of society, I could care less who someone wants to associate with. To each their own.

In the Pacific Islands, there recently has been a decent amount of anti-Caucasian racism going around, especially in Hawaiian chain of islands. This is an unfortunate occurrence, since all ethnic groups should be free to seek out and enjoy the tropical islands, regardless of who happened to get there first or who established the first settlements there. In some areas, the native Hawaiians will refer to or address the Caucasian tourists who tend to overrun all the islands as "Haoles" (which more or less is a derogatory term meaning something along the lines of "No Breath"), and recently some violence has occurred (albeit in isolated instances). This seems to mainly stem from some sort of deep-seated resentment of the American government annexing Hawaii and taking the land away from the native Hawaiians, or something along those lines.

However, since the tourists come from all locations and from all ethnic backgrounds throughout the world, it is unfortunate that one ethnic group in particular tends to get picked out and labeled as being the one who is "destroying paradise" or whatever the people choose to believe. Personally, I find the resentment to be pointless and an obstacle in establishing friendships between the ethnic groups.

There seems to be less of this sort of feeling among the Tahitians, but since Tahiti is still part of French Polynesia (belonging to France), there seems to have been less of the totally wanton destruction of the natural environment in the process of building tourist hotels and resorts as there has been over in Hawaii.

Interesting. What MOS were you?

I was a 37F: Psychological Operations.

I have had alot of experience interacting with Muslims both in the USA and in Iraq. From what I have seen first-hand, The most moderate Sunni Muslims at best just sort of look the other way or silently support the Jihadists. Their sheiks, both in Iraq and here, will tell you what you want to hear about how they condemn terrorism and love the USA, but silently they support the radicals. The Iraqis would put on a show for the US Army of how supportive they were of the occupation and accepting civilization, but then they would make every effort to sabotage our operations.

Even though the USA does not yet have a large and militant Islamic minority, that day will be here soon.

I feel it is almost certain that the USA will never be able to bring democracy to Iraq like we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. The Islamic culture will never accept it. Even though the Japanese had a very militant culture, they already had a history of embracing western technology and ideas(the Meiji Restoration.) It will never happen with Iraq.

Ha! Do you think the US invaded Iraq to 'civilize' it? I think they were trying to impose something other than civilization.



It's funny that an opponent of miscegenation and multi-culturalism can overlook the fact that the US invasion initiated a civil war between 3 ethnic groups, or would confuse something that looks like the former Yugoslavia with Japan, which has a very cohesive national identity.

I don't support the war in Iraq and I never have. It was certainly not up to me to dictate US policy in Iraq. I was just following orders and doing my job. No one ever asked me how I felt about the war.

As I stated previously, I opposed the war because I felt it would bring in millions of Muslim refugees into the USA. Historically, our forays into 3rd-world lands have brought in their "boat-people."

It is really beyond me at this point what our goal in Iraq is. Iraq was created in 1922 in the Aftermath of WWI when the British and French drew a wedge shaped area in Mesopotamia and called it Iraq. I have never felt that there was any hope for reconciliation between Kurds, Shia, and Sunni Muslims. They all hate eachother to no end(although 95% of Iraqis seem to have no idea why they actually hate eachother, only that they have been at odds for 1500 years.) For Iraqis, the civil war between ethnic groups is almost tradition; one Sunni town fires rockets at a Kurd town once a year on the same day every year as kind of a holiday.

I believe that the Bush Administration started the war on a false pretence and played off of post 9-11 sentiment. I think that they expected a quick victory and planned to economically exploit the land. I don't think that they counted on as much Iranian interference and Sunni resistance as they did. At the time, I was only a simple specialist, so I could do little but take orders from those above me and go do my job. I wasn't overly enthusiastic about trying to help the Iraqis at all, wether they wanted democracy or a dictatorship was irrelevant to me. I just wanted to get the hell out of there. Our government, at a crushing expense to our own taxpayers, IS building schools, roads, hospitals, and other civic works projects in Iraq, which the Iraqis promptly cover with grafitti or firebomb. For whatever good works we are doing in Iraq, the local residents are extremely ungrateful.