U.S. Bars War Opponents....

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by shartley
I would not say they are not “suited” for democracy. I guess only Anglo/Euro White folks are “suited” for democracy? Yea Haw… Go grab the sheets and gasoline Jim Bob, we are not racist, we just post like them!

And your saying there is nothing racist about what you said, but is just common sense…. Again, I remember similar (if not the EXACT same thing) said about Blacks and Women.

You know what? I just think you let your self perceived intellect override TRUE common sense. I also think that whenever you post something and are called on it, you state that you are misunderstood (no matter how clear your posts are) and then slightly alter your posts just a bit to try to sidestep the problems… and continue to do so as each thing you say is successfully countered.

ZING!!!!!

Collegeboy=OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Well not the same language. Croatian and Serbian is similar but not the same. It is like saying Italian and Spannish are the same (but the difference between the two are bigger I think). They have two different alphabets (Croation a latin and Serbian a Cyrllic (Might be backwards)), over a thousand different nouns and such. Croatia is 75 percent Catholic, and Serbia is 65% orthodox. The difference between Sunni vs ****te is much greater and more dangerous then Cathlic vs. Protestant today, think Catholic vs Protestentism back when Lurther nailed the orders on the door.

I'll grant you the point on language. My understanding was that they both mainly spoke the (hybrid?) Serbo-Croatian.

Eastern Orthodox is not Catholic or Protestant. The split there goes back much farther than Martin Luther. The reason that protestant churches seem fairly close to Catholic is that they are all offshoots of Catholicism, some dating back as far as the 14th C, some later.

The three main branches of Christianity that I am aware of are Orthodox (eastern: Greek, Russian, etc.), Catholic (western: RC, and all our "protestant" denominations) and Coptic/Gnostic (southern, think Ethiopia, Egypt, etc.) That split dates back almost 2000 years, as Jesus's apostles went to spread his word to different peoples.

The original split between Sunni and Shi-ia Islam, as I understand it, had to do with the authority of the descendants of Muhammed.

[FactsOfLife]

The Boys SOP:

1. Post some racially insensitive comments and/or some other sure to be inflammatory anti US statement.

2. Get called on it by people who know better.

3. Attempt to change what was said.

4. Get called on the revisions.

5. Scream "I'm a victim".

6. Rinse and Repeat.


good lord he's shampoo....

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Ha-ha!

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Jeffy-CanCon


I'll grant you the point on language. My understanding was that they both mainly spoke the (hybrid?) Serbo-Croatian.

Eastern Orthodox is not Catholic or Protestant. The split there goes back much farther than Martin Luther. The reason that protestant churches seem fairly close to Catholic is that they are all offshoots of Catholicism, some dating back as far as the 14th C, some later.

The three main branches of Christianity that I am aware of are Orthodox (eastern: Greek, Russian, etc.), Catholic (western: RC, and all our "protestant" denominations) and Coptic/Gnostic (southern, think Ethiopia, Egypt, etc.) That split dates back almost 2000 years, as Jesus's apostles went to spread his word to different peoples.

The original split between Sunni and Shi-ia Islam, as I understand it, had to do with the authority of the descendants of Muhammed.

I understand the difference between Orthodox Churches and Protestant churchs. My remark was comparing protestantism to Cathlic in the western Europe, for many people on this forum, other forums, and all over beleive that the difference between shiite and sunni are the same as chathlics vs protestants. I was desputing that not making a comparison between othodax and cathlic or protestisim.

FOL. I did not make racial comments. I said that Iraqis are not suited for a democracy. Which they are not. I said some people in this world are not suited for a democracy, that is true. Democracy is not something that you can go in and install. It is something that has to install itself, it has to build up over time. There are factors that need to be meet before it can be put into effect. You have to reach point b before passing to c.

Shartly read what I wrote above. It is exactly what I said. Iraq is not suited for a democracy. I am sorry that I have to dumb down my post so that people can understand a simple comment.

You resorted to calling me an unfounded name to get the argument in your favor. Look at peoples post since yours and see what I mean. The arugment has went to a lets prove he is racist, and me lets try to get some sense into these peoples heads (an impossible task )

Nope, I am not to deceide. I can tell you that at no time in history was a democracy ever initiated in a country that either did not already meet the standards for democracy and it being sucessful.

Yes 1de, the US did thrust the idea of democracy on them.

Why don't you know and look at the differences between Spain and Iraq, and Poland and Iraq, etc...... Poland, vastly catholic, Spain, vastly catholic. One relegion that binds ethnic groups. Poland, a very educated populace, Spain, a very educated populace, all needed for democracy to work.

You are correct FOL, there are no conditions needed for a country to be allowed to become a democracy. They can become what ever they want (something the US will not allow Iraq to do), but there are conditions that will tell if the government will succede. What if in Iraq the people vote in a fundamentalist terroristic supporter of a person. All he has to do is get the majority of the people to beleive into his principles. Something that is easy to do when you have an uneducated populace. Look how many people though Bush was the moral choice in 2000, depite his background, and look how educated Americans are.

Why do you have to have a democracy to be free, are we free under a democracy. We have to elect people to decide for ourselves. Shouldn't we ourselves make our own desicions. I thought that is what free means.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Shartly read what I wrote above. It is exactly what I said. Iraq is not suited for a democracy. I am sorry that I have to dumb down my post so that people can understand a simple comment.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You resorted to calling me an unfounded name to get the argument in your favor. Look at peoples post since yours and see what I mean. The arugment has went to a lets prove he is racist, and me lets try to get some sense into these peoples heads (an impossible task )

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Nope, I am not to deceide. I can tell you that at no time in history was a democracy ever initiated in a country that either did not already meet the standards for democracy and it being sucessful.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Why do you have to have a democracy to be free, are we free under a democracy. We have to elect people to decide for ourselves. Shouldn't we ourselves make our own desicions. I thought that is what free means.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

Yes 1de, the US did thrust the idea of democracy on them.

No we are not. We are one of many nations that pressured them. We did not force anything upon South Africa.

Why don't you know and look at the differences between Spain and Iraq, and Poland and Iraq, etc...... Poland, vastly catholic, Spain, vastly catholic. One relegion that binds ethnic groups. Poland, a very educated populace, Spain, a very educated populace, all needed for democracy to work.

That catholic faith is protecting the Spanish from the ETA terrorists isn't it?

You keep changing your toon. It is religion or race that binds all these other countries that succeeded. We have proven you wring on both counts!

Play French and surrender!

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not saying a race of people are not suited for a type of government. Stop putting words in my mouth. Just like the right.

That's such a cop out. That's like saying "I never said it was ok to beat black people, I just said some beatings work better on them". That's such an ignorant and RACIST statement it makes me cringe.

I am saying that there is not one type of government that suits everybody. Would you say Paul Harvey is a rasist? (waiting for your answer, for he said that Democracy is not suited for everyone because it requires self governance, and some people are not ready for self governance.)

Um, you're taking his remarks out of context, and frankly I never agreed with that statement anyway. Every group of willing people are capable of selfgovernance and living a free and fullfilling life. I would grant that a group of Jihadis are not capable of living in democracy because they are not willing to be responsible for themselves. But any group of "regular" Arabs is certainly capable.

Democracy has turned South America inside out. They were not ready for it, they are now suffering.

Corruption has destroyed certain parts of South America, that were frankly not being ruled as a democracy in the first place.

There is nothing racist about that, just common sense.

You still haven't told us what evidence supports your claim, since people that share similiar backgrounds as the Iraqis now self govern in Turkey, Malasia, and India. You know, when you're self professed common senses allegations about the inferriority of a race of people directly contradicts known and verfiable facts there's good reason for our claims of racism.

Because you're disdain for a people blinds you to reality.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Was the government of India and Iran put forth by a foreign government. No the government was put forth by the people opposing a foreign government. (which you heard me before the war stating that that is what needed to happen.

Yeah, but the foundations for that government was laid by the thos feoreign powers ,that's where the ideas came from. And in this case assistance is being rendered but it is still the Iraqis that primarily determine their own fate, with guidance from US and other nations (even the damned UN).

Iran is full of Sunnis (I think that is the one, though might be mistaken), the majority of its people are represented by the government. The US will not allow a Iraqi government to represent the majority of the people for then it will be the same as Iran. The US can not allow that.

Huh? Are you daft? What the US WANTS is for a free Iraq to encourage the Iranians to overthrough the Mullahs and set up their own democracy. We aren't worried about the Iranians influecing the Iraqis, in fact we're counting on the opposite.

Read my above post, and think.

I can't do both. When I read your posts I vomit uncontrollably. When I think I can't bring myself to read your filth.

It was a typo, it was suppose to say, I with hold myself from lashing out in immature posting calling people names. Why can you all not do the same.

I have.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
FOL. I did not make racial comments. I said that Iraqis are not suited for a democracy. Which they are not. I said some people in this world are not suited for a democracy, that is true. Democracy is not something that you can go in and install. It is something that has to install itself, it has to build up over time. There are factors that need to be meet before it can be put into effect. You have to reach point b before passing to c.

You say you haven't said anything racist and the go right on and spew more of it. You really don't get it do you.

Shartly read what I wrote above. It is exactly what I said. Iraq is not suited for a democracy. I am sorry that I have to dumb down my post so that people can understand a simple comment.

You had to "dumb down your post so that people can understand it". The gall is sickening. Get this kid, we understand you perfectly. You're a disgusting human being, why don't you go tell the Iraqis they're not ALLOWED to be free and have a democracy in their country. After all according to your "superior" thought process they aren't good enough yet.

You resorted to calling me an unfounded name to get the argument in your favor. Look at peoples post since yours and see what I mean. The arugment has went to a lets prove he is racist, and me lets try to get some sense into these peoples heads (an impossible task )

No, we understand exactly what it is you've said on the subject. You're a racist. This is not difficult to figure out. I have no problem with reading comprehension. There is no argument on the subject.

Nope, I am not to deceide. I can tell you that at no time in history was a democracy ever initiated in a country that either did not already meet the standards for democracy and it being sucessful.

I guess the USA doesn't count in your world then does it.

Yes 1de, the US did thrust the idea of democracy on them.

OH MY GAWD! Hey YOU! BE FREE! I can see how upsetting that must be to the likes of you. can't have every savage in the world getting a taste of freedom now can we. Why... how will they ever handle it?!?!?

Why don't you know and look at the differences between Spain and Iraq, and Poland and Iraq, etc...... Poland, vastly catholic, Spain, vastly catholic. One relegion that binds ethnic groups. Poland, a very educated populace, Spain, a very educated populace, all needed for democracy to work.

So now you're asserting that the Iraqis are nothing but an uneducated pile of savages who aren't smart enough to not only govern themselves, but don't posess the capability of higher learning? I'd bet no small amount of money that the average Iraqi is vastly smarter than you are.

You are correct FOL,

I know I am. Have you fallen on your head and finally realised this?

Look how many people though Bush was the moral choice in 2000, depite his background, and look how educated Americans are.

Once again your true motivation rears it's ugly head.

Why do you have to have a democracy to be free, are we free under a democracy. We have to elect people to decide for ourselves. Shouldn't we ourselves make our own desicions. I thought that is what free means.

Oh man you just like to dig the hole deeper don't you.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Inferior, funny, now people are using name calling to discredit people who oppose their ideas. No wonder you like McCarthy (the greatest evil this country has ever produced (well one of them)). I am the one who do not judge other cultures, based on the ideas of my culture, maybe you need to do the same.

CB, if you didn't feel they're inferrior then you wouldn't feel they derserve less then the "civilized westerners". Don't try to hide your racism or explain it away not that it's been revealed. It's just cheap

Poland is mainly one religion.

So is Iraq. It's just different sects of one religion, which Poland had a very similiar situation.

I didn't say it relies on their race, I said it relies on how they are. As others have said Iran and other Arab countries are pushing towards democracy. They seem ready for it, Iraq is not at that point and will have to go through a civil war before they maybe get to that point, but my guess is like in all other cases of Civil War a tyrant will rise not a democracy.

That is so STUPID. You can't have a democracy until you've killed eash other? What basis do you have for this "fact" CB? And what Tyrant arised from our own Civil War? Since in ALL cases a tyrant raises maybe you'll tell us the one we had?

You're so full of it.

Call me an uncalled for name again and I shall report you. It is uncalled for, and does nothing but show the immaturity of your posting.

Sticks and stones...

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by The Boy:

Iraq is not at that point and will have to go through a civil war before they maybe get to that point, but my guess is like in all other cases of Civil War a tyrant will rise not a democracy.

So in order for the Iraqis to have a democracy, in your opinion they'll have to kill each other first?

WTF are they putting in the food at the cafeteria??

And the USA after it's Civil War was ruled by tyrants?

Good lord kid, give it up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself....

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Collegeboy, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I might have to agree with Albinonewt, Shartley and the others that you are a racist. The fact that a radio talk-show host agrees with you is not a real defence. I tried to throw you a hint about people "not being ready yet" for democracy, which you could have adopted and saved yourself. You missed the hint, and I am forced to conclude that you are either racist, or just generally thick-headed.
Your arguments and defences tend to be weak and poorly presented, so I am inclined to charitably presume the latter.

Self-government is a RIGHT for all peoples. How they govern themselves, or how well, is not for others to judge. That's an idea put forth by your own President Wilson back in 1918. He was a professor of political science, and an internationally-respected statesman. If you want to go name dropping, I think think he outweighs Paul Harvey. People who thought like your Mr Harvey were responsible for propping up innumerable South and Central American dictatorships, all in the name of "corporate freedom".

[Mateo]

Wow this is very entertaining, I feel like such a nerd.

And yes I agree with everyone else. I second, CB you have been twisting your words around and trying to avoid being caught wrong. Why can't you just swallow your pride and accept that your wrong? Its something that you have to learn in life that even children have already learned. It appears to be that since you can't accept one thing it just snowballs into more and more arguements and conflicts. Its quite, pathetic. Learn some humility and grow up, it will make you a better person. Im not saying this as a conservative or liberal, left or right, Im saying this as a moral stand point that all cultures have.

Also from a spectator side, FOL, 1DE, Shartley, etc. Are you going to lower yourself to use namecalling to prove a point? We are all civil here, maybe you should cut down on this. Even tho it does make for a good show

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Mateo
Also from a spectator side, FOL, 1DE, Shartley, etc. Are you going to lower yourself to use namecalling to prove a point? We are all civil here, maybe you should cut down on this. Even tho it does make for a good show

Yes, I'll lower myself to whatever level is needed to counter nonsense like his.


Now go to your room, son.