Respectful Debate

[135791]

lets get back to the topic at hand anyway

its ok for everyone to have there OWN opinion

 

[Giancarlo]

The person who is turning this into a flame thread is Giancarlo. He's the one who calls us idiots every time we say something with which he doesn't agree with.

That's just wrong. Look at what Root has said to me.. he said I'm stupid. If you don't show respect, you get none in return.

 

[root]

Again more nonsense
The only stupidity displayed here has been by you.
Now you're being irrelevant as a whole to this argument.
How sad.
You are ignorant and your views
Not relevant again
Typical rantings of a deranged leftist.
How funny.
You really should study your history.
Your supporting arguments suck and always have.
You aren't too sure actually.
You don't take into account the reality
I could care less
I have a problem is with your reasoning skills.
I again am talking about your ways of thinking.
You don't know what you are talking about again.
You are the one full of irrelevant tripe
If there is a course named relevant argument 101 you should seriously consider taking it.
Your arguments are what I call,
totally irrelevant and totally useless to this debate.
Again this is wrong.
I know a lot more in this topic then you do
You are the one who has problems with reason
You have to get off your ego,
You again are a liar.
I find you to be one of the most insulting people on this forum.
you impudent little snob?
I don't think you know anything about politics at all.
You can't even form a logical argument as it is.
I suggest you take time to think and actually form an argument
you are filling this forum with a bunch of useless garbage.
Please for once in your life, think
you say something mind numbingly stupid.
You haven't yet made a well reasoned post. I'm waiting for one.

I coulnt no less than 34 personal insults in your last long post.

please think before you reply to my post.
It requires one level of a thought before you go on your little bash fest
make a complete idiot of yourself.

Followed by another three in your second...

As for being the 'most insulting people on this forum.'

Axis of Stupidity: Lord Kalthorn

think your signature speaks volumes about your aperance around here...

I'll now reply directly to the post.

Taking on board the moderator comments, I'll try not to be rude, but it's a little difficlut when Giancarlo seems intent on dragging anyone who dsagrees with him into a slagging match.

 

[135791]

well roots made my pionts clear

shall we continue without insulting each others views and opinions

 

[root]

Had you actually read my post, you'd have realised that I disagree with most of kerrys policies, and tend to favour bush,

Typical rantings of a deranged leftist.

The two are mutually exclusive, I cannot support the left and right at the same time.

I don't really care. I'm just disagreeing with your methods on the way you state things

It's OK to have your opinions, personal insults aside, I don't see anything wrong with what I have written, And I still believe that most of the posts you have put forward have only been personal opinion, and those that have been backed by factual evidence, there has been very little evidence, or at least very little substancial evidence, you are able to link to articles proove my opinions wrong, with linked evidence, not just with more opinion/insults.

The example was to illustrate the fact that in politics it is the popular opinion that is correct,

Again I don't know why you brought up German citizens. I never brought that up and never made a statement like that. Now you're being irrelevant as a whole to this argument.

I brought up the idea of wartime german citizens as a parallel, a completly detached situation where the point I was trying to make was simillar, the point I was trying to make, and am still maknig is that politics is very much determined by popular opinion, your opinion is that Bush is the best candidate for the job, and that Kerry, far from being just the worst candidate is in actual fact completly unsuitable for the job.

Before Any American lectures and british person on attitudes to terrorism, and allowing terrorism to happen, perhaps they should take a good hard look at themselves, their sympathetic attitude to the IRA and the corperate funding from american companies, the IRA recieved.

Not relevant again (let alone I don't think that's at all factual). And besides Ronald Reagan was a close friend to Margaret Thatcher. Reagan was assisting the British and the two were very good friends (Reagan deployed an SSN and some other ships when the falkland war erupted).

http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575144/Irish_Republican_Army.html#s6
http://www.irlnet.com/rmlist/acros.html -FOSF Friends Of Sinn Fein "US based lobby and fund-raising organisation for Sinn Fein" -Sinn fein is the political front of the IRA.

suffice to say I found these links (and many many more) by looking on google

This is quite a nice bunch or articles http://irelandsown.net/News37.html

It's american citizens and american business that sympathise and fund terrorists, (and in the case of al-queda the CIA actually trained them!)

Typical rantings of a deranged leftist.

You'll find plenty of links above to proove my previsous 'deranged rantings'
now find more links below to back up that one.
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/bombings_in_africa.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/150903pakistanalqaeda.html

again just a quick google search away.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=CIA+training+Al+qaeda+Taliban


So far I hae staed opinion that many US organisations (goverment and private sector) have activly supported, trained and funded terrorists. and provided many links to credible news sites.

Aside from your opinion that I'm lying, could ou provide any evidence from credible sources that categoricaly states the US
1, did not help fund the IRA?
2, did not help arm the IRA?
3, did not support the IRA?
4, did no train the Taliban or Al queda?

I am confident in asking you to proove that because I know it cannot be done!

I didn't say that the soudi government endorsed the 911 terrorist strike, I said that most of the attackers were of saudi arabian oragine, and were trained inside of that counrty.

So, since Timothy McVeigh was American, we should bomb ourselves? How funny. He afterall, like many domestic terrorists, were trained in the US.

No, far from it, I would expect the government (within the realms of their own jurisdiction) to set up large intelligence opperations, and strict border controls, I would expect information to be tried and tested that could link people to terrorist activities. -to a large extent those places where this can be done, it has been done.

Al Qaeda wasn't funded and trained by the CIA

See the link above for proof that it was,

however what was disgraceful is that Bush Sr or Clinton did not help Afghanistan. At first the taliban, was eyed to bring positive change believe it or not.. but that soon changed when the entire movement was hijacked by radicals.

Bush Jnr hasn't exactly been hot on the reconstruct a weak nation fron t either, in fact, when compared to the war budgets both britain and Americas budget for aid for their previous 'target' is very very poor.
The Taliban was a positive influence on afganistan, outlawing the growth, production and export of heroin, Now that the Taliban has been deposed herion growth, use and export is rife, Many of the new industries that were created in the country are now dead, with practically no chance of recovery. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1004-07.htm

You really should study your history. Your supporting arguments suck and always have.

As the news links that I have posted have prooved I do indeed know my history, and can provide links to proove that I do.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040412fa_fact -the worst bit about the afgan war,
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=afghanistan+post+war+heroin+use)

You aren't too sure actually.

As I said the first tmie I am quite sure and firm in my belief, the links I've posted will proove that I am not the only one who shaers this belief, the beliefs I have are draw directly from both news and political reports and whitepapers.

You don't take into account the reality and what is really going on in this world. I could care less if you support Bush, Kerry or Nader.

I am well aware of what is going on, again all I can say is I hope that the 'well reasoned' supported argument will go some way to making somebody take notice of what I am saying.

What I have a problem is with your reasoning skills. The world cannot hijack an election or tell people who to vote.

I don't see how my reasoning skills are any worse than yours!

Well you can vote for a mistake. That's your fault.

I've tried to back up my opinions with credible evidence of how I reached that opinion. My question/challenge to you was to do the same, obviously itr is a challenge that you cannot, or will not meet.
I'm not trying to change your vote, I'm not trying to change anyones vote, I'm neither campaigning for or against any point of view, what I am campaigning for is the free and open debate of politicts, where opinions are back by fact, I worry that in the worlds only super power many people are going to go with the popular conformised choice, with charectors like Micheal Moore making prime time TV with his films at election time, I can see that many many people will be drawn in to what he is saying, regardles of whether it is fact, (or as I fell is mostly the case with his story books) a clever work of fiction.

http://www.theregister.com/2004/11/01/politics_us_movies/
http://www.theregister.com/2004/10/28/bush_movie_villain/

why were you going on about the Germans in WWII when I mentioned nothing of WWII?

As I said, and will re-itterate, the point of the divergense was to draw parallel with a case, the point was to show that oplitics is massivly fuelled by opinion, in politics ts hard to tell what is 'right', if there is ever a truly 'right and 'wrong' case, (-and their rarely is) it is very difficult to tell the right way and the wrong way, in many cases the right choice can be obscured by accompanying wrong choices.

Unbiased arguments? Arguments have a slant always and are not unbiased. You have to get off your ego, and understand you are not the one directing things around here. And my standards are different then yours, so you cannot tell me what is the right way to argue and what isn't.

I'm quite sure that if I were to take a course named relevant argument 101, it would tell me that when I make a point I should always back that point up with facts,
In fact when you did your major in politics I'm fairly sure they would have advised you that whenever you enter a debate you should be armed with facts and evidence, and try to keep personal opinions uot of the debate, whilst I agere that an argument there will always be bias and side taknig, the title of this topic was 'Respectful Debate ' which implies people will have differing opinions, but that they would state them backed up by evidence.

whilst I don't expect the formal rules of debate to be adhered to, I don't think supporting evidence would be too much to ask for inside of a debate.


the rest was pretty much flames, and whilst I did take the time to read it, it's not deserving of a reply.

I applogies to the people who think that I write overly too much in my posts.

 

[broknhabit]

(being against gay marriage is a negative, stem cell research needs to be more actively funded, and religious schools and institutions shouldn't get federal money).

um, i disagree with all of what you said right there...

 

[alvino]

well it depends. with gay marriage, i think its not right to have gay marriages, but its not right for George bush to make a amendment banning it, it should be left to the states. and with stem cell i agree with you giancarlo, its does need to be more funded. and with religous schools and institutions im not sure... so yeah...

 

[Giancarlo]

Well Root, I have nothing to say to you. You just need to grow up and stop acting like a baby.

 

[root]

so we have found out that you can niether:
respectful,
nor debate

-what the hell were you doing posting here!

 

[Giancarlo]

You can't debate and you don't know what respect is. I have nothing more to say to you anymore. I got what I want today.