Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OBAMA for president
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308381 is a reply to message #308380] |
Sun, 06 January 2008 22:07   |
 |
Chimp
Messages: 399
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| [NE |
Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 23:03]| Quote: |
Actually my witty little friend, its been statistically proven that 78% or more of Muslims in the Middle East ARE affiliated with Al Queada.
Also, I think you fail to see THE POINT OF THE POST. I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists. I'm saying, we have a constant eye out for Muslims. We dislike them, and treat them like crap, for better or for worse. We are waging war with MUSLIMS. Terrorists or non-terrorists.
So please, spare us your ''witt'' and try not to make anymore of a fool out of yourself than you already have.
|
Probably the most ignorant post I've seen in this thread...
78% or more Muslims in the Mid East affiliated with Al Qaeda? 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, wouldn't that mean that Al Qaeda has over a billion affiliates? Half the people at my school are middle eastern, I don't know a single one who supports Al Qaeda, let alone is affiliated with it.
|
I said in the MIDDLE EAST. Are you in the middle east? Because if so, and none of them support al queada, I would know you'de be...Uh...Lying.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308386 is a reply to message #308380] |
Sun, 06 January 2008 23:31 |
 |
Starbuzz
Messages: 2487
Registered: May 2007
Karma: 2
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
@Razor:
You argue such useless points. What a waste of time. Of course in that sense everyone is a "racist" since any idiot knows that there are a thousand different definitions for the word "racist." Some of those definitions are negative and the rest just descriptive.
The most common definition we see today is the "superior/inferior" definition. Not only is this the widespread definition of racism but it is also the most negative. No one wants to be associated with this definition but your generalizations are pretty absurd in that that is what you are trying to do. Instead of arguing that all people are racists (they ARE based on different definitions) these are the folks you should be arguing against.
The racism definition that me and MWright fall under is our acknowledgement that human beings are different based solely on race. While by thinking that we are being racists, it is not in the negative sense and so there is no further need to carry on this useless triade of yours.
Me and him believe that other than that purely PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE, all human beings are equal. No one is smarter than the other but all of them are capable of achievement.
See, it is completely natural for the human brain to sort information categorically. That is why when I drive down to work, for example, I know that the vehicle in front of me is a blue truck, and that the driver who is behind me is a White female.
Based on that example, you are saying I am being both a racist and a sexist? While the different definitions prove so, a milisecond quick observation of the brain does not count as me being racist or sexist in the NEGATIVE sense. Understand?
What else do you want me to think? "Oh there's a human being driving the car behind me and it might not have a penis" sounds pretty ridiculous right?
While true when it comes down to the words, it is a waste of time to argue about this. You know why? Because racism has many definitions and ALL HUMANS FALL INTO ONE DEFINITION OR ANOTHER.
You do make sense but you just simply choose the definition of racism that suits your rather needless argument. I never thought someone would argue about something this basic and hence my reasoning for my previous post.
If you are trying to say that me and MWright are being racist in the "inferior/superior" sense, then you got the wrong people, buddy.
Other than that, you must realize that some people are different...WAY too different and do not think the same way as most people. Unfortunately, we have too few of those people in this world.
You do have a point but since your argument is based on the definition of a word that has many meanings, I would say this has resulted in nothing but the criminal waste of time.
NOTE: And BTW, I can relate to a hundred different personal life experiences and beliefs of mine to prove I am not a racist in the negative sense.
EDIT: Razor, there is a reason I do not favor religion and there is a reason I believe in humanity. There is a reason I have no "patriotism" to any country. Because I consider myself a part of humanity; a humanity without any boundaries with the only boundary being love.
But such a beautiful world my eyes will never see due to the current mentality of people and the global prison system we live in.
[Updated on: Mon, 07 January 2008 08:10] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308387 is a reply to message #308386] |
Sun, 06 January 2008 23:42 |
|
Chimp
Messages: 399
Registered: December 2007
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
| Starbuzz wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 00:31 |
@Razor:
You argue such useless points. What a waste of time. Of course in that sense everyone is a "racist" since any idiot knows that there are a thousand different definitions for the word "racist." Some of those definitions are negative and the rest just descriptive.
The most common definition we see today is the "superior/inferior" definition. Not only is this the widespread definition of racism but it is also the most negative. No one wants to be associated with this definition but your generalizations are pretty absurd in that that is what you are trying to do. Instead of arguing that all people are racists (they ARE based on different definitions) these are the folks you should be arguing against.
The racism definition that me and MWright fall under is our acknowledgement that human beings are different based solely on race. While by thinking that we are being racists, it is not in the negative sense and so there is no further need to carry on this useless triade of yours.
Me and him believe that other than that purely PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE, all human beings are equal. No one is smarter than the other but all of them are capable of achievement.
See, it is completely natural for the human brain to sort information categorically. That is why when I drive down to work, for example, I know that the vehicle in front of me is a blue truck, and that the driver who is behind me is a White female.
Based on that example, you are saying I am being both a racist and a sexist? While the different definitions prove so, a milisecond quick observation of the brain does not count as me being racist or sexist in the NEGATIVE sense. Understand?
What else do you want me to think? "Oh there's a human being driving the car behind me and it might not have a penis" sounds pretty ridiculous right?
While true when it comes down to the words, it is a waste of time to argue about this. You know why? Because racism has many definitions and ALL HUMANS FALL INTO ONE DEFINITION OR ANOTHER.
You do make sense but you just simply choose the definition of racism that suits your rather needless argument. I never thought someone would argue about something this basic and hence my reasoning for my previous post.
If you are trying to say that me and MWright are being racist in the "inferior/superior" sense, then you got the wrong people, buddy.
Other than that, you must realize that some people are different...WAY too different and do not think the same way as most people. Unfortunately, we have too few of those people in this world.
You do have a point but since your argument is based on the definition of a word that has many meanings, I would say this has resulted in nothing but the criminal waste of time.
NOTE: And BTW, I can relate to a hundred different personal life experiences and beliefs of mine to prove I am not a racist in the negative sense.
EDIT: Razor, there is a reason I do not favor religion and there is a reason I believe in humanity. There is a reason I have no "patriotism" to any country. Because I consider myself a part of humanity; a humanity wihout any boundaries with the only boundary being love.
But such a beautiful world my eyes will never see due to the current mentality of people and the global prison system we live in.
|
I couldn't have said it any better myself. Kudo's to you my friend 
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308396 is a reply to message #308387] |
Mon, 07 January 2008 00:40 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Lol, took you long enough. But I was actually hoping for MWright to reply that.
If you don't get what I mean, than let me explain it.
You see, the way that I like to argue things is by picking ways that I can see something, which is, from what I can tell, completely different than what whoever I am talking to had in mind.
Why do I do that? Well because allows whoever I'm talking to to be... lets say... less narrow minded. Think beyond the meaning of whatever the topic is because the world is not all black and white.
.... and well more or less..... it is mad fun watching you guys squirm XD.
---
Oh, btw, in case nobody realized yet, the thing I have been arguing that racism is, I have been using the definition of stereotypical in place of it. I'm actually pretty surprised nobody figured that out..
So Star, you are actually wrong. Right in the fact that you can look at a topic in any which direction and see a good angle in it, but wrong in the fact of the topic of this thread.
I can go and quote things that I have said above to show you I'm not lying about what I am saying now, but only if you ask me to. Cause it is 2:50AM here and I need to get to sleep so I can wake up at 6... yea I know I'm cutting it close...
...I hate Mondays T_T ...
[Updated on: Mon, 07 January 2008 00:52] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308460 is a reply to message #308377] |
Mon, 07 January 2008 08:10 |
|
Starbuzz
Messages: 2487
Registered: May 2007
Karma: 2
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 |
Lol, took you long enough.
|
I cannot afford to be on the forums all day. 5-10 minutes every 5 hours is all I can muster.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 |
You see, the way that I like to argue things is by picking ways that I can see something, which is, from what I can tell, completely different than what whoever I am talking to had in mind.
|
Causing a totally UNNECESSARY confusion is stupid. Your explanation is pretty conceited since we all know that we are racists (according to their different definitions).
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 |
Why do I do that? Well because allows whoever I'm talking to to be confused as hell.
|
Fixed.
We all know what the different definitions of racist are but only 1 or 2 of them are used by the mainstream society. By doing what you are doing WITHOUT REFERENCING to those other definitons, you fool the person into thinking that he is be being called a racist in the NEGATIVE meaning. This is what you did with MWright.
Instead of screwing around and wasting time and giving crap examples, you could have simply said that racism has many other meanings instead of saying vague things like:
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 22:49 |
I already said that I don't think any race is superior to another. Every race is equal. But by me thinking that, I am being racist!
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 22:49 |
Anyway, what I am saying is, one person cannot consider themselves as not a racist, because the very fact that they said that is racist.
|
Then you felt the need to come back and say "narrow-minded." Not knowing something is not equal to being narrow-minded. Find another word.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 |
.... and well more or less..... it is mad fun watching you guys squirm XD.
|
Just what I thought. Immaturity at it's best. You lost all credibility with that mockery.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 |
Oh, btw, in case nobody realized yet, the thing I have been arguing that racism is, I have been using the definition of stereotypical in place of it. I'm actually pretty surprised nobody figured that out..
|
I did but did not care to bring it up, Mr. Genius.
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 01:40 |
I can go and quote things that I have said above to show you I'm not lying about what I am saying now, but only if you ask me to.
|
No thanks...nobody cares.
[Updated on: Mon, 07 January 2008 10:19] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308506 is a reply to message #302002] |
Mon, 07 January 2008 13:05 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I think we've basically squeezed out all the flaming we can out of this subject.
Plecos?
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308525 is a reply to message #308381] |
Mon, 07 January 2008 13:30 |
 |
[NE]Fobby[GEN]
Messages: 1377
Registered: July 2004
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| MWright967 wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 00:07 |
| [NE |
Fobby[GEN] wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 23:03]| Quote: |
Actually my witty little friend, its been statistically proven that 78% or more of Muslims in the Middle East ARE affiliated with Al Queada.
Also, I think you fail to see THE POINT OF THE POST. I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists. I'm saying, we have a constant eye out for Muslims. We dislike them, and treat them like crap, for better or for worse. We are waging war with MUSLIMS. Terrorists or non-terrorists.
So please, spare us your ''witt'' and try not to make anymore of a fool out of yourself than you already have.
|
Probably the most ignorant post I've seen in this thread...
78% or more Muslims in the Mid East affiliated with Al Qaeda? 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, wouldn't that mean that Al Qaeda has over a billion affiliates? Half the people at my school are middle eastern, I don't know a single one who supports Al Qaeda, let alone is affiliated with it.
|
I said in the MIDDLE EAST. Are you in the middle east? Because if so, and none of them support al queada, I would know you'de be...Uh...Lying.
|
Do you have any idea how many people live in the middle east?
Population:
Egypt: 80 million
Syria: 19 million
Jordan: 6 million
West Bank: 1.4 million
Gaza Strip: 1.4 million
Lebanon: 4 million
Iraq: 27 million
Saudi Arabia: 27 million
Qatar: 900,000
Kuwait: 2.5 million
Bahrain: 7 million
United Arab Emirates: 4 million
Libya: 6 million
Turkey: 71 million
Iran: 65 million
Total = 295,200,000 People
Divide by 100, multiplied by 78 (your claim of "78%")
230,256,000 affiliates in Al Qaeda, according to your logic
Apparently Al Qaeda in your logic is bigger than all the world's superpowers combined 
Al Qaeda 's base of support isn't even in the Middle East; it's in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are both not even in the Mid East. Sure there are some Al Qaeda in Iraq, but they're not even the biggest group there.
Again, I know many of Middle Easterners and Muslims in general who go to my school, and not a single one supports Al Qaeda, related groups, or terrorism in general.
Saying Muslims are the enemy of America is just like saying the Jews were the enemy of Nazi Germany.
Unreal Tournament 3 Total Conversion to C&C: Renegade
Check out Renegade X Today!
Mod Wars Veteran
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308629 is a reply to message #302002] |
Mon, 07 January 2008 20:01 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
I can't agree with that statistic of 78% of Muslims supporting al-Qaeda. Many Muslims are upset with how their region has been literally screwed up by Western powers such as Britain, France, and America, who treated their people like shit; but supporting a group that has no qualms about killing other Muslims, simply runs against all logic.
There are other popular organizations, such as the Muslims Brotherhood that are (were) quite a bit more moderate, and so they'll easily have more support than al-Qaeda.
Plus, al-Qaeda opposes Capitalism, western ways of business, and pretty much every form of "excess" and entertainment. If 78% of Muslims supported al-Qaeda, how come Dubai hasn't been torn to shreds yet?
Not to be a dick, but I've spent a chunk of my life studying the Middle East, even before the towers fell, and it's even a course of my studies, so I have to say that you might want to recheck those figures, eh? 
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308632 is a reply to message #308629] |
Mon, 07 January 2008 20:04 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 07 January 2008 19:01 |
Plus, al-Qaeda opposes Capitalism, western ways of business, and pretty much every form of "excess" and entertainment. If 78% of Muslims supported al-Qaeda, how come Dubai hasn't been torn to shreds yet?
|
I can see it now.
"Wtf r Dubai?"
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308760 is a reply to message #302002] |
Tue, 08 January 2008 13:35 |
|
[NE]Fobby[GEN]
Messages: 1377
Registered: July 2004
Location: Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Not everyone in the U.S is affiliated with the U.S army, he's saying 78% of the Middle East is affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Affiliated doesn't just mean support, it means being a part of.
It seems that people are forgetting that some of the richest, most capitalized cities in the world exist in the Middle East.
Unreal Tournament 3 Total Conversion to C&C: Renegade
Check out Renegade X Today!
Mod Wars Veteran
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308762 is a reply to message #308760] |
Tue, 08 January 2008 13:43 |
|
|
What's the percentage of tax payers in America? They give money to the military through taxes. I'm sure that if the number isn't greater than his fake number, then I'm sure the other superpowers' number of taxpayers pushes the total over.
Honestly, I just wish we had a non-interventionist view on politics. I don't think we should be push-overs, but starting wars to preventing wars is, well... like fucking for virginity.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Tue, 08 January 2008 13:45] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308864 is a reply to message #308381] |
Tue, 08 January 2008 17:42 |
 |
Ethenal
Messages: 2532
Registered: January 2007
Location: US of A
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Actually, no, I don't feel like taking part in a flamefest. (Deleted.)
| -TLS-DJ-EYE-K wrote on Mon, 18 March 2013 07:29 |
Instead of showing us that u aren't more inteligent than a Toast, maybe you should start becomming good in renegade
|
[Updated on: Tue, 08 January 2008 17:44] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308882 is a reply to message #308246] |
Tue, 08 January 2008 19:29 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| MWright967 wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 14:28 |
Let me settle this argument:
The US is not ready for a BLACK MUSLIM as their president. We're waring with MUSLIMS right now, and if anyone hasn't already noticed....Blacks aren't exactly the most respected group in America, or on the world scale for that matter. Picking him to be our president would mean 2 things:
1, We'd be total hypocrits. We go over to start a war with muslims, then elect one as our president. Fishy, huh?
|
1. Barack Obama is not a Muslim. He is a Christian. His father was a Muslim and that probably influenced him as a kid somewhat, but once he was old enough to make his own choices, that's all that should really matter.
2. There is no war against Islam, it's a war against Islamic extremism. Saddam Hussein was not an Islamic extremist.
| MWright967 wrote on Sun, 06 January 2008 14:28 |
Obama isn't going to win. He CAN'T win. Don't you understand why he was put in the election? To make it seem like Blacks and Muslims, America's two most hated minorities, are becoming more ''equal'', not that he would actually WIN.
|
Again, he's not a Muslim. As for being black, he cannot win an election simply because some committee decided they want a black President. What's more, out of the large number of PEOPLE who approve of Obama, I don't think too many of them are doing it simply on the basis that he's black. I like the guy more than any other candidate except Ron Paul, but race was never a consideration for me. For you, it was apparently the ONLY consideration... and you are telling me racism isn't over?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308887 is a reply to message #302002] |
Tue, 08 January 2008 19:45 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Ah. Well, my family pays taxes, and I'm of voting age (18), and I'm not regestered for the draft. I guess it's one of the perks of not being a citizen.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308888 is a reply to message #302002] |
Tue, 08 January 2008 19:46 |
Muad Dib15
Messages: 839
Registered: July 2007
Location: behind a computer screen,...
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Obama is a Muslim.
And let me ask you this Spoony. Would you want a prime minister that wouldn't put his hand on his heart and say what ever you say when you pledge alliegence to your country? If no, they why do you think we would? Obama is frikin running for president, if I was democrat and even if I didn't like her, I would vote for Clinton, because even though she is pretty bad, I wouldn't want a guy that doesn't even pledge alliegence to our flag to be president. He just stood there with his hands folded in front and didn't say anything.
The manliest post on the internet
|
|
|
|
| Re: OBAMA for president [message #308893 is a reply to message #308888] |
Tue, 08 January 2008 19:53 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 20:46 |
Obama is a Muslim.
|
No, he's not.
| Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 08 January 2008 20:46 |
And let me ask you this Spoony. Would you want a prime minister that wouldn't put his hand on his heart and say what ever you say when you pledge alliegence to your country? If no, they why do you think we would? Obama is frikin running for president, if I was democrat and even if I didn't like her, I would vote for Clinton, because even though she is pretty bad, I wouldn't want a guy that doesn't even pledge alliegence to our flag to be president. He just stood there with his hands folded in front and didn't say anything.
|
The word "trivial" springs to mind here. Where his hands are doesn't mean shit, you don't know what he was thinking at the time. As for the Prime Minister question, well, there isn't really a pledge of allegiance tbh, but if there was, the position of the Prime Minister's hands at the time would mean absolutely nothing to me.
finally,
| Quote: |
I wouldn't want a guy that doesn't even pledge alliegence to our flag
|
that's like saying that praying is only praying if it's done exactly according to the "official" way (which, according to Jesus in the Bible, certainly doesn't involve churches)
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 15 05:01:25 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01383 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
