DescentBB

Posted: **Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:31 pm**

Maybe if Obama and his agendas weren't so absolutely unAmerican

Intellectuals.... How do you deal with this level of debate fogging up your forums? I see this everywhere on the internet, it gets in the way of all intelligent discourse.
How do you personally deal with this? Do you try to correct it? Do you ignore it?
WUT DO

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:46 am**

That statement makes sense or is nonsense, depending on one's view of what "American" means.

If you're referring to the tendency of the U.S. right-leaning folk to cast Obama as the epitome of everything un-American, meh. It happens here with the opposition to every President I can remember.

If you're referring to the way political polarization interferes with rational discussion, I'd agree somewhat.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:21 am**

I have no idea why someone gets mad at what another dipshit on the internet thinks. I find all the different opinions and ideas humorous, educating and entertaining all at the same time. Only times I will get upset is when one dickhead tries to decide what everyone else should hear or think. As long as someone is not being outright offensive and rude, censorship should not enter into the process. Those kind of people should never be given charge over others as they cannot even restrain themselves.
There's 7 billion people on this earth right now, it's gonna suck balls when they all think the same way =/

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:26 pm**

roid wrote:
Maybe if Obama and his agendas weren't so absolutely unAmerican
Intellectuals.... How do you deal with this level of debate fogging up your forums? I see this everywhere on the internet, it gets in the way of all intelligent discourse.
How do you personally deal with this? Do you try to correct it? Do you ignore it?
WUT DO

Can't do anything except try to marginalize them. People that hold this opinion will never have their minds changed.They're xenophobic and trying to rationalize it any way possible. They're probably of the same minority that still thinks Obama is a Muslim too.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:40 pm**

flip wrote:There's 7 billion people on this earth right now, it's gonna suck balls when they all think the same way =/

Unless by "the same way" you mean using compassion and understanding.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:57 pm**

no different than what those on the left did to Bush. and even Obama himself saying that the Bush debit was UN-American. ironic since his current debit in 4 years is more than Bush's was in 8

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:18 pm**

Unless by "the same way" you mean using compassion and understanding.

Yeah, the world is just full of that already:).

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:31 pm**

flip wrote:
Unless by "the same way" you mean using compassion and understanding.
Yeah, the world is just full of that already:).

It is! But we haven't, as a species, been able to easily extend it past all the different "group-isms." But with everyone getting connected globally, we might be able to really be "one people" in a matter of several generations -- permitting we last that long, which I think is likely. It's a good dream, no?

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:06 pm**

roid wrote:
. How do you deal with this level of debate fogging up your forums? I see this everywhere on the internet, it gets in the way of all intelligent discourse.
How do you personally deal with this? Do you try to correct it? Do you ignore it?
WUT DO

Hunter Thompson put it well:" far be it from me to recommend the use of strong drink or dangerous chemicals, but, then again, it's always worked for me".

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:00 pm**

"Intellectuals" Heh. I deal with my own personal shortcomings that keep me from doing anything about it in the debate (ignorance, mis-framing an argument, accepting a mis-framed argument, ...). A debate that is going nowhere is a debate going nowhere thanks in part to your inability to take it somewhere.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:38 pm**

CUDA wrote:no different than what those on the left did to Bush. and even Obama himself saying that the Bush debit was UN-American. ironic since his current debit in 4 years is more than Bush's was in 8

yes, yes this is a helpful direction.
what is your advice on howto deal with irrational/outof-touch/stupid people clogging up discussions you wish to participate in? It gets in your way right?

I often have the feeling of being in a loud crowded pub, standing room only, trying to scream out a conversation with a friend on the other side of the room - shouting back and forth - most of the words getting lost amongst the noise because the entire pub is singing Ricky Martin tunes at the top of their lungs.

Posted: **Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:47 pm**

I know I might be considered a biased party, but I would recommend a multi-year hiatus.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:26 pm**

CUDA wrote:no different than what those on the left did to Bush. and even Obama himself saying that the Bush debit was UN-American. ironic since his current debit in 4 years is more than Bush's was in 8

Bush started 2 illegal unfunded wars and gave the wealthy massive tax cuts that drove our country into it's present massive debt problem. That's on top of sanctioning state-sponsored torture, legalizing spying on Americans with the Patriot Act and forming the TSA. I'd call those pretty good reasons for most lefties to be ticked off at Bush, not some phony idiotic claptrap about him being either un-American, a Socialist or a Muslim.

But, since Obama is continuing Bush's legacy, those are the real reasons people should be mad at Obama, not the crazy stuff they're making up about him personally.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:19 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:
CUDA wrote:no different than what those on the left did to Bush. and even Obama himself saying that the Bush debit was UN-American. ironic since his current debit in 4 years is more than Bush's was in 8
Bush started 2 illegal unfunded wars

that is a false statement. the "Legality" of the wars has never been determined. it has been debated but there has NEVER been any legal ruling from anyone of the legality of it.

The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."[1][2] The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed. The political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal, while many legal experts and other international leaders have argued that it was illegal. US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Persian Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.[3] Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.[1][4][5]

The UN Security Council, as outlined in Article 39 of the UN Charter, has the ability to rule on the legality of the war, but has yet not been asked by any UN member nation to do so

But, since Obama is continuing Bush's legacy, those are the real reasons people should be mad at Obama, not the crazy stuff they're making up about him personally.

agreed....... Along with about 100 other reasons

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:58 pm**

Congress never "declared war" in either case. They just let Bush go out and do his thing and settle his grievances with Sadam (and cause the unnecessary deaths of our troops) after the country went psychotic after 9/11. Same with Clinton's little Bosnian "war", although he was lazier and shot off a couple of missiles. But the clincher was Bush hiding all that massive spending on his watch, so he wouldn't have to pay for it and the next pres would get stuck with the bill.

I notice you're not arguing with the rest of the criminal Bush legacy that I noted above.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:49 pm**

tunnelcat wrote:I notice you're not arguing with the rest of the criminal Bush legacy that I noted above.

nope because for the most part I agree with you. but what they call Obama doesn't compare to some of the things they called Bush.

Some compare Karl Rove to Joseph Goebbels, Tom Ridge to Heinrich Himmler.

The hard left decided long ago that George W. Bush is Hitler. In maddened corners of the Internet and at swastika-choked anti-war marches, Bush is shown with a Nazi uniform or a Hitler mustache.

But does everyone on the far left believe this? Not at all. Some think that Dick Cheney is the real Hitler (he commands America's "storm-trooper legions," said former right-wing crackpot and current left-wing crackpot Lyndon LaRouche). Others think Don Rumsfeld is Hitler (both men favored mountaintop retreats, the Action Coalition of Taos points out). These comparisons are still being argued. Air Force veteran Douglas Herman, writing an op-ed piece in Florida, says Rumsfeld is more like Hermann Goering, since both men were fighter pilots, while LaRouche decided that Cheney isn't just Hitler - he's Lady Macbeth as well.

Many on the left believe that either Ari Fleischer or Karl Rove is Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. Or maybe Richard Perle is related to Goebbels. The September issue of Vanity Fair suggested that Perle could be Goebbels' twin (side-by-side photos, headlined "Separated at birth?").

Another vexing question about Rove: Is he Goebbels or Josef Mengele? Goebbels is the top choice among anti-war commentators, but a writer to the MetaFilter site said: "Karl Rove made up stories about John McCain, just as Josef Mengele conducted medical experiments on children in Auschwitz."

One Internet site referred to Tom Ridge as Heinrich Himmler; another calls him head of "Homeland Security, the new Gestapo." Colin Powell is Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, according to a posting on the Democratic Underground site. And Frank Rich of The New York Times managed to work a famous Nazi filmmaker into the mix. He wrote that the recent Showtime docudrama, "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis," was so pro-Bush that it is "best viewed as a fitting memorial to Leni Riefenstahl."

The common charge that Bush is Mussolini is controversial; many leftists insist that the Mussolini role is reserved for Tony Blair, the junior partner of Bush's Hitler. Cartoonist Aaron McGruder said on TV that Condoleezza Rice is a murderer but failed to give her any Nazi designation - a big mistake by prevailing standards. On the same show, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said, "I generally agree with (McGruder) 100 percent," but he too failed to offer a good Nazi comparison.

Paul Wolfowitz is a challenge to lefty analysts, some of whom think his intellectual background is fascist (Jeffrey Steinberg in Executive Intelligence Review), while others believe he has Bolshevik roots (he is Trotsky's ghost, according to Canadian journalist Jeet Heer).

Anyone who calls the Bush people fascists will get no argument from Princeton professor Sheldon Wolin, who says, "We are facing forms of domination that exceed the old vocabulary." So if you feel like calling somebody a fascist, go right ahead. Historian Eric Foner of Columbia compared Bush to the Japanese warlords of World War II who launched a pre-emptive war at Pearl Harbor. Since other name-callers on the left are so Nazi-minded, this qualifies as a fresh idea.

By last fall, most of the outstanding villains of history had been pressed into service as forerunners of George Bush. Napoleon is a heavy favorite. "The only difference between George W. Bush and Napoleon Bonaparte is 10 inches," Debby Morse wrote in the San Francisco Examiner. She compared John Ashcroft to Napoleon's ruthless police chief, Joseph Fouche. History professor David Applebaum of Rowan University compared Bush to Robespierre as well as to Napoleon. And many have speculated on whether Laura Bush seems like Josephine. Radical journalist Alexander Cockburn wasn't sure about Bush as Napoleon, "though surely Josephine's heart beats beneath Laura's delicious bosom."

Bush is Dr. Frankenstein, according to the cartoon "Bushenstein" featured on the Democratic National Committee Web site. Anti-Bush columnist Paul Krugman apparently disagrees. The cover on the British edition of his current book of columns shows Bush as Frankenstein's monster, not as Frankenstein himself.

The frontier for Bush insults keeps shifting. One day the president is Attila the Hun, the next day he is Ted Bundy. A posting on The Unknown (an apparently unhinged news site) said that Bush is a charming lunatic, just like Hitler, Ted Bundy, Mussolini and Hannibal Lecter. One lefty said Bush is Caligula, while another insists he is the new Nero ("Nero burned Rome, Hitler burned the Reichstag, Bush burned the World Trade Center"). Don't you love the way these people argue?

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:46 pm**

CUDA, the difference I see is that while you easily can cite abusive descriptions of Bush from 'apparently unhinged' sites, one can see rank and file Congressmen, Federal Judges and Party leaders publicly disrespecting Obama with impunity. That, to me, is far more dangerous, traitorous and objectionable than some fringe ideological kooks going overboard on Bush. Just my opinion, mind you, but there is a difference in tone and nature of the attacks, if one looks at it dispassionately.

Posted: **Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:52 pm**

agreed. And that's also been the tone of public discussion, like in forums, like in this forum.

I mean i don't remember common usage of terms like "Bush-Hitler" or things like that, except on the unruly fringes of discussion.
Whereas apparently saying Obama is a Muslim is the norm for prime-time popular news outlets, it set a precedent and the audience followed, so now that's how we're talking on forums.
[youtube]jAMIneGqmCY[/youtube]

There's a psych observation (sorry can't remember it's name) that shows that people tend to overestimate the wrongdoings of their opposition and underestimate their own wrongdoings - leading to increasing severity of tit-for-tat punishments, basically why cycles of violence are so easy to maintain and can escalate so quickly. So it's hard to be objective when i compare the tone of vitriol, i must give that disclaimer. But never-the-less, in my opinion the tone against Obama is much worse, there's a notable imbalance. And i've read plenty of opinion pieces noticing the same. Not that that's objective either, but it's fun to defer to populism as if somehow washing my hands of bias, haha. Dumb brain.
IMO most anti-Conservative sentiment from Progressive public figures is accompanied by appeals to reason, appeals to dialogue. Whereas i see most anti-progressive sentiment from Conservatives as just plain abusive, with very little appeal to reason (and more often appeals to various logical falacies, but maybe that's a discussion for another thread).
But this could be just what i'm exposed to. And it could also be influenced by the media (both sides).

I don't want to get abusive towards the opposition, escalating a tit-for-tat. i'd rather the abuse stopped and we raised the bar. ie: expecting a higher level of discussion, and this would obviously apply to all sides. What are we gaining with these cheap shots other than cheap tribal-war thrills?
I've heard this a lot, not really sure how true it is:

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:12 pm**

callmeslick wrote:CUDA, the difference I see is that while you easily can cite abusive descriptions of Bush from 'apparently unhinged' sites, one can see rank and file Congressmen, Federal Judges and Party leaders publicly disrespecting Obama with impunity. That, to me, is far more dangerous, traitorous and objectionable than some fringe ideological kooks going overboard on Bush. Just my opinion, mind you, but there is a difference in tone and nature of the attacks, if one looks at it dispassionately.

Here's a conservative "Representative" of the people, who's outright spreading lies, misinformation and smears about Democrats, which of course, he laced with the usual slurs "Democrat Party" and "Communists". No wonder liberals are fed up with conservatives and especially the crazy "tea party" people right now. And you conservatives sit there and accuse the liberals of not being polite, partisan and spreading hate. Rep. West needs to look in the mirror!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... _blog.html

Talk about overestimating the wrongdoings of your opponents roid! We're right back to the McCarthy Era with these morons!

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:27 pm**

I think it's safe to say there are bonafide communist in our government at this point. probably have been since the end of WW2. They call them selves democrats, libertarians, republican's, progressive's and independants. Anything but communist, but because this country was full of good, hard working rubes ripe for the taking, they were able to systematically destroy us from within.

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2012 6:53 pm**

flip wrote:I think it's safe to say there are bonafide communist in our government at this point. probably have been since the end of WW2. ... ecause this country was full of good, hard working rubes ripe for the taking, they were able to systematically destroy us from within.

Been reading Cold-War era comic books again?

Posted: **Thu Apr 12, 2012 7:40 pm**

Been reading about fairies and unicorns again?

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:06 am**

vision wrote:
flip wrote:I think it's safe to say there are bonafide communist in our government at this point. probably have been since the end of WW2. ... ecause this country was full of good, hard working rubes ripe for the taking, they were able to systematically destroy us from within.

Been reading Cold-War era comic books again?

Hmmm...Anita Lizard Lady Hill public acclaim for Mao and Obama advisor Van Jones....nah, there's no commies hiding. They're plainly out in the open.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:14 am**

Oh, so these USA politicians are Communists now Woodchip.
I suppose this is you essentially comming into my thread to say "★■◆● you roid, this bar ain't never gonna rise."

flip wrote:I think it's safe to say there are bonafide communist in our government at this point. probably have been since the end of WW2. They call them selves democrats, libertarians, republican's, progressive's and independants. Anything but communist, but because this country was full of good, hard working rubes ripe for the taking, they were able to systematically destroy us from within.

You're scared of Communists? That's kindof weird man, it's literally JUST a (outdated iirc) political position.

ps: if you're joking, please keep this in mind.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:37 am**

roid wrote:Oh, so these USA politicians are Communists now Woodchip.
I suppose this is you essentially comming into my thread to say "★■◆● you roid, this bar ain't never gonna rise." Did you notice what thread you were in, or what?

Did you notice the Ostrich I was replying to? PC is for the faint of heart...and I love ya man.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:19 pm**

vision wrote:
flip wrote:I think it's safe to say there are bonafide communist in our government at this point. probably have been since the end of WW2. ... ecause this country was full of good, hard working rubes ripe for the taking, they were able to systematically destroy us from within.

Been reading Cold-War era comic books again?

nah, he's riffing on something I said, earlier.......

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:29 pm**

A communist is not just a person with a different "political position". A communist wants a totally different relationship between people and their government--a totally different kind of government. (different than the one the United States was formed under and the states agreed to) But do they lobby for this change openly? No, they have done it very subtly. They have influenced education, all kinds of media, passed laws with seemingly innocuous stated purposes, and campaigned under the guise of environmentalism... These sons of bitches don't bring their theories to the table because when it comes right down to it they're unAmerican--they subvert individual liberty. It's a raw deal, and any individual who hasn't been brainwashed, when they're presented with it in an up-front manner, knows it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:59 pm**

...you're seriously stuck in the 50s, aren't you?

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:15 pm**

Call it what you like, I'm not a product of the brainwashing of your generation.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:15 pm**

This is a debate…

Righty: Obama is un-american.
Lefty: Nah, Obama just has his own vision for america.
Righty: Well I fear for this country blah blah…
Lefty: Blah blah blah…

This is not a debate….

Righty: Obama is un-american.
Lefty: Stupid! Idiot! Ve have vays to suppress the opinions zat ve don’t vish to hear.

Neo-Censorship.

Wow look at that bar rise, don’t let it hit you in da chin!

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:16 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Call it what you like, I'm not a product of the brainwashing of your generation.

bwahahahaha

This is hilarious on several levels.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:32 pm**

Laugh it up. It's true.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:10 pm**

Um, yeahno. That whole "onoz teh Reds are hiding among us!!1" delusional hysteria groupthink bull★■◆● was a perfect example of mass brainwashing (perhaps more self-brainwashing than anything else), and all it accomplished was some absolutely vile treatment of innocent individuals. Trying to raise those same sentiments now is beyond laughable...it's flat-out pathetic, and it completely undermines any shred of a valid point in what you posted.

My generation is the one that's brainwashed? People my age and younger seem to be the ones who have mostly realized that the 21st century is no place for irrational prejudices and head-in-sand denial of basic scientific truths. They're not the ones pushing energy industry profits over a factual crisis, they're not the ones spewing hatred against people that happen to be attracted to the same gender, they're not the ones paying off elected officials to pursue draconian policies so that their dinosaur of an entertainment industry can wheeze along, they're not the ones whose greed royally fucked the economy over the past few years, and they're not the ones denying any semblance of a social contract to those most in need. As many things that concern me about people in their teens and twenties today, what ultimately gives me hope is the fact that they're more tolerant of outgroups and more critical of authority figures than those who have come before them. Maybe, just maybe, they'll manage to clean up the mess that the Boomers have left for us.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 8:25 pm**

Unfortunately TG, you have a naive way of thinking. Eric Holder 1995:

"In it, the future attorney general spoke about the need to "really brainwash people to think about guns in a vastly different way."

So I wonder if the Fast and Furious proggy Holder approved was one method of brain washing people like TG without them realizing it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:47 pm**

Spidey wrote:This is a debate…

Righty: Obama is un-american.
Lefty: Nah, Obama just has his own vision for america.
Righty: Well I fear for this country blah blah…
Lefty: Blah blah blah…

i just want to point out, that Lefty apparently neutralised Righty's opening statement. Thus Righty's first statement was a total waste of time for all involved, and in hindsight Righty should have really just opened with their Second statement.
Now don't get me wrong, it's all fine. But when every debate starts with that very same time-wasting statement, when the participants don't actually remember anything from the exercise, and the next debate is exactly the same, it's hard to call that a debate. It's more like a spam bot.

It's not fun nor constructive to debate with spam-bots, to refute the same points over and over. How can any sort of consensus or shared-vision be approached in these circumstances?

(this is one of the reasons i have been known to drop so many wikipedia links, because i'm trying to save time and effort by pointing and saying "no no look at this link showing that that's already been done, so lets move on to something else".)

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:15 am**

One of the things I have learned in my time on the DBB is that when things are rehashed in the way that this is--to Roid's consternation--it is because the argument has never sufficiently been dealt with. This is the truth of the matter (and a great many others), IMO. I've seen people write it off as stubbornness (could be the case, once in awhile, but that certainly doesn't account for all occurrences), or attribute it as the nature of the subject matter (as if the subject matter itself resisted resolution somehow--an example of a modern-day, intellectual superstition, IMO). So is the answer to skip over it? Who is more at fault, the one rehashing it, or the one dealing with the rehash in much the same way every time? There's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia as a factual reference (I believe wikipedia articles may be written by people who have some off-color philosophical baggage, in some cases, but the facts themselves are exposed for all to criticize), but if you expect to settle a philosophical problem-argument between two people from very different backgrounds with a mere reference link you may be guilty of expecting a blunt-force tool to do a delicate job at a stroke (like giving a bolt a single, solid tap with a hammer to get the nut off).

What you want, Roid, is people who are, to a degree, like-minded. That's just not the case here. If you can't expect to deal with "unAmerican" to the point where everyone sees the folly of using the reference (if indeed it is folly), why should you expect to be able to "raise the bar" by simply dismissing the term, argument in-tow, altogether?

This is an arena for debate. Furthering debate by doing away with inconvenient debate strikes me as a logical fallacy.

For my use, the term unAmerican is a shocking, all-encompassing label that adequately represents what some of the present-day political maneuverings really amount to. They'll never admit it openly, until the change in the political landscape has gone far enough that they can look back and mock or otherwise look down on what America used to be--a bastion of individual liberty--without risking backlash. And the reason unAmerican can be expected to work this way, is that American/America itself has specific meaning for so many people. Enough so that politicians hide their own agendas behind it to gain acceptance (this practice may have resulted in a loss of meaning). Finally you can't judge my usage of the word "unAmerican" by the fact that so many people misuse it (according to the wikipedia article), that in itself is a fallacy. To make an accurate judgment you are forced to judge it on the meaning attributed to it in my reply.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:43 am**

Top Gun wrote:Um, yeahno. That whole "onoz teh Reds are hiding among us!!1" delusional hysteria groupthink **** was a perfect example of mass brainwashing (perhaps more self-brainwashing than anything else), and all it accomplished was some absolutely vile treatment of innocent individuals. Trying to raise those same sentiments now is beyond laughable...it's flat-out pathetic, and it completely undermines any shred of a valid point in what you posted.

That really is the goal, isn't it? You, Top Gun are guilty of consistently jumping to conclusions which allow you to dismiss your opponent's argument. The "Red Threat" witch hunt, or whatever it was, was quite before my time. That's pretty damn thin.

As I said, it was before my time, so I can't comment on it to either defend or condemn it. What I can say is that when people take an oath of office to defend/uphold the constitution of the United States, and instead seek to subvert it, then they ought to be charged. People in the private sector desiring to change what America is, is another matter entirely. Were they doing it openly they would get from me only a steady resistance to romanticized ideas that give way ultimately to oppression and suffering. They're not doing it openly...

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:52 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Laugh it up. It's true.

you're right, you are clearly the product of a different generation of brainwashing.

Posted: **Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:01 pm**

There is a lot of poor debate going on in my opinion, for example…

How can taking someone’s opinion and replacing it with your own version of the truth, without offering up an argument even be considered a debate?

That seems to me more like condescension.

Posted: **Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:50 am**

hmm...

a serious topic discussing a possible communist-conspiracy could be interesting. I mean, i don't really give it much serious thought coz it sounds intuitively crazy to me. But if you guys disagree, can articulate some convincing points, evidence and whatnot, and discuss inherent biases... what are we waiting for

*grabs carkeys* Conspiracy thread roadtriiiiiiiip

DescentBB

On raising the bar

On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar

Re: On raising the bar