Besides, I think that the problem is that we are engaging in uncivil discussions. If we presented our arguments, and attacked each other in a more serious and civil manner, we wouldn't even have this problem in the first place.

On 2002-04-15 10:13, TraceyX wrote:
Despite having once voted for him, by the late 90's, I was certainly no fan of Bill Clinton. However, even when I had made up my mind that the man was almost entirely without a sense of honor and seemed to hold almost no convictions worth mentioning, I could still recognize that there existed a brand of "Clinton-hater" who had lost all rationality about him.

There were (and still are) people who would find something bad to say about practically anything Clinton said or did, regardless of how benign it was. If Bill Clinton stood behind a podium and recited the key passages from the Declaration of Independence, they would find something bad to say about it. If Clinton smiled at a puppy dog, these people would find something bad to say about it. If Clinton decided to go into a restroom to urinate, these people would find something negative about it.

These people had so brainwashed themselves that absolutely nothing Clinton could do would meet with their approval. I remember one instance where Clinton's stance on a subject and a certain rabid-Clinton-hater radio personality's stance on the same subject were EXACTLY THE SAME, and Clinton had publically stated the exact arguments used by the Clinton-hater, and, eerily, the Clinton-hater appeared to have HEARD THE EXACT OPPOSITE from Clinton's lips, even though it was a recording that the radio guy played more than once. This radio personality proceeded to denounce Clinton for holding exactly the opposite stance that Clinton had clearly professed, despite a meager attempt by one of the radio guy's cohorts to point out that Clinton had, in fact, said exactly what the radio guy was saying.

It was the fact that I could still recognize when people were attacking Clinton irrationally that I felt MY low opinion of Clinton was rational and justified.

I have come to the conclusion that Stonewall is exactly like this when it comes to GWB. He has lost all rationality on the subject of GWB, believing the most ridiculous things even when all of the evidence contradicts his beliefs. He is a "rabid-Bush-hater". Stonewall has lost all objectivity. Stonewall lives in a dreamworld. GWB is Stonewall's Satan incarnate.

No matter what happens, Stonewall will denounce GWB. If Bush decides to topple Saddam Hussein, something Stonewall believes should have been done in 1991, Stonewall will denounce the decision. Stonewall points out that the Saudis are responsible for 9/11. If GWB then topples the government of Saudi Arabia, Stonewall will still denounce the decision. Anything GWB decides to do in the future will be wrong as far as Stonewall is concerned.

It is Stonewall who drinks Kool-Aid, from wacky conspiracy sites to the more loony libertarian fringe groups. His vision of the world is black-and-white. The black helicopters are coming for him, even now; he can hear them off in the background. He alone knows the truth, and they will get him for it.

TraceyX, I have to agree with you. I've run up on a lot of Stonewall's posts, and I have yet to see more than a very tiny handful that don't center on denouncing GWB, and anyone who supports GWB, often in terms and in a tone of voice that brings to mind the more strident and conspiracy-minded Clinton haters of the last decade. And now, I have to get back to my glass of Kool-Aid. :lol:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-15 10:47 ]</font>

On 2002-04-15 10:41, madscientist wrote:
Besides, I think that the problem is that we are engaging in uncivil discussions. If we presented our arguments, and attacked each other in a more serious and civil manner, we wouldn't even have this problem in the first place.

Talk to Stonewall, then, Robert.

Think back. Whom to you associate with uttering the phrase "Kool-Aid drinker" on this forum. How about "ham sandwich". The list could go on and on.

On 2002-04-15 10:58, TraceyX wrote:

On 2002-04-15 10:41, madscientist wrote:
Besides, I think that the problem is that we are engaging in uncivil discussions. If we presented our arguments, and attacked each other in a more serious and civil manner, we wouldn't even have this problem in the first place.

Talk to Stonewall, then, Robert.

Think back. Whom to you associate with uttering the phrase "Kool-Aid drinker" on this forum. How about "ham sandwich". The list could go on and on.

We shall not place the blame solely in the hands of Stonewall.

On 2002-04-15 11:10, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-04-15 10:58, TraceyX wrote:

On 2002-04-15 10:41, madscientist wrote:
Besides, I think that the problem is that we are engaging in uncivil discussions. If we presented our arguments, and attacked each other in a more serious and civil manner, we wouldn't even have this problem in the first place.

Talk to Stonewall, then, Robert.

Think back. Whom to you associate with uttering the phrase "Kool-Aid drinker" on this forum. How about "ham sandwich". The list could go on and on.

We shall not place the blame solely in the hands of Stonewall.

Actually, as far as uncivil behavior goes on these forums, I agree that the blame can be spread far and wide, from the right-wingers who call their opponents 'commies' or 'reds', to the left-wingers who use such terms of endearment as 'fascist' or 'neanderthal' to describe their opponents. And I suspect that I am not guiltless in this regard myself. :oops:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-04-15 11:20 ]</font>

On 2002-04-15 11:10, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-04-15 10:58, TraceyX wrote:

Talk to Stonewall, then, Robert.

Think back. Whom to you associate with uttering the phrase "Kool-Aid drinker" on this forum. How about "ham sandwich". The list could go on and on.

We shall not place the blame solely in the hands of Stonewall.

Blame for what, Robert?

BTW, "ham sandwich" would be Bill (buuurrrppp) Bennett. If this is about civil versus uncivil discussions, then let me point out that Mr. Bennett drew first blood by setting up AVOT whose raison d'?tre is to smear all who dissent in the "War" on Terror. He deserves everything he gets in response and, frankly, "ham sandwich" is pretty mild on the full scale of criticisms which the blowhard has been receiving lately from various quarters.

On 2002-04-15 12:07, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Blame for what, Robert?

For lost civility on the forums. Read below:

On 2002-04-15 11:10, madscientist wrote:
Besides, I think that the problem is that we are engaging in uncivil discussions. If we presented our arguments, and attacked each other in a more serious and civil manner, we wouldn't even have this problem in the first place.

On 2002-04-15 10:58, TraceyX wrote:

Talk to Stonewall, then, Robert. (emphasis added)

We shall not place the blame solely in the hands of Stonewall. (Translation: uhhh...so what about everyone else on this forum?)

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
"The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren and to do good is my religion."-Thomas Paine


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-04-15 12:36 ]</font>

The Palestinian territories aren't a part of Israel, Israel has not annexed them. They are territories in dispute, the people in those areas have no civil rights. Because they are not citizens of Israel.

You evidently don't understand the issue.

Of course the Palestinian territories aren't a part of Israel. So what is Israel doing there occupying the land and oppressing the people there?

If Israel chooses not to respect the human rights of the people it controls, this is imperial colonialism of the worst sort.

The entire land of Israel and Palestine is "in dispute," if the territories are. Actually, there is no dispute. The UN recognizes the territories as former lands of Jordan and Egypt which are the basis of a new Palestinian State. Even Israel and the USA recognizes this.

The whole Palestinian and Israeli Arab population can be regarded as the enemy in Israeli eyes. Because of their desire to destroy Israel and drive the Jews to the sea.

I think people need to recognize, that if they want discussions to be civil, it is also the responsibility not to post things that are not only nonsense, but very insulting and degrading.

Case in point: the above quote. Tristan, on what basis have you decided that "all" Arabs in Israel-Palestine wish to drive Israel into the sea? Where is your data? These kind of statements, which you continually make, are nothing but hatred and prejudice. Firemind, for you to agree with them, confirms my opinion of your posts which I have expressed before, and which you took pains to deny.

Firemind: Er, um, Eric, we ARE allies with Russia now.

We are not allies in any official way, and we given them virtually no support compared with the billions we pour into Israel so it can buy tanks and planes to kill Arab civilians in their genocidal war against them.

If we gave the Palestinians this kind of support, it is true that they might behave like the Israelis do; but that is unproven. All they have to fight back against Israel is suicide bombing. To expect it to stop before negotiating, is to not be willing to negotiate.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-04-15 13:38 ]</font>

On 2002-04-15 12:29, madscientist wrote:

For lost civility on the forums.

Robert, in the first place, we all probably spend the majority of our time talking about things other than the Bush administration or neocons. The poster is referring to the minority of the time when Marc stirs up the same controversies with us and we stir him up in return. Nothing has changed here. There is a central aspect of gamesmanship and we are willing participants. But this is not incivility. If that were the case, we would no longer be exercising our gamesmanship with each other. But we continue to play the game and that is because we are still civil.

There is a consistency about the poster in question. He/she has more than once acted offended because neocons and/or the Bush administration have not been placed on a pedestal by all parties here. Tough. They may think that they have God on their side but some of us beg to differ. Furthermore, the poster in question, if I am not mistaken, has even posted something ghastly about wanting to rip the entrails out of Iraqis or something to that effect. That is not just uncivil; it is uncivilized. None of the neocon and/or Bush critics have posted anything remotely similar that I recall. And none of the neocon and/or Bush critics have even considered complaining about the uncivilized nature of the poster's brutal prescription...free speech should be respected after all. The poster is a neocon and/or Bush administration shill and obviously and predictably doth protest too much.

Eric, your response sickens me.

This is the mentality you are supporting:



Of COURSE the Palestinians have other means then suicide bombing. You have obviously swallowed their propaganda wholesale.

The ANC of Nelson Mandela never resorted to terrorism. Nor did the followers of Gandhi. Both accomplished their goals. Why cannot the Palestinians do the same?

Most of the rest of your post was wrong as well, but it so disgusts me that you are supporting terrorism that I simply can't write any more.

Terrorism, like slavery and torture, can never be justified. Those who attempt to justify it should be ashamed.

You are the problem, Eric. How can you look at yourself in the mirror? Shame on you.

Arafat is a monster who teaches little girls to strap on bombs and blow themselves up for his own power. If somebody tried to teach my daughter to do that, there'd be no holding me back.

There has been a lot of talk of "kool-aid drinkers" lately. The original "kool-aid drinkers" was that suicide cult in Guyana.

In our times, where are people taught to "drink kool-aid", from preschool on? In the Palestine of Arafat.

Call me what you want. If one side is ruled by a President-for-life who kills dissenters and teaches their children to hate Jews and kill them whenever they can in any way they can, and the other side has open debates, free elections, free speech, and avoids killing civilians whenever possible, I know which side I'm on, and I make no apologies.

Stop listening to the Palestinian propaganda for the consumption of gullible westerners like yourself. Check out what they ACTUALLY SAY in Arabic on their own media.

To do so really shouldn't be neccessary, however. You need only see the results of their culture:

And just so you don't try to deny saying it, here it is:

[quote]
On 2002-04-15 13:16, Eric A Meece wrote:

All they have to fight back against Israel is suicide bombing.

False, false FALSE, Eric!

On 2002-04-15 13:39, firemind wrote:

The ANC of Nelson Mandela never resorted to terrorism. Nor did the followers of Gandhi. Both accomplished their goals. Why cannot the Palestinians do the same?

BINGO!!!

On 2002-04-15 13:34, Xer of Evil wrote:

Stonewall, I will send you an autographed photo. Of myself, not the congresswoman. Would you prefer clothed or unclothed?

Hehehe. You better make it clothed to keep the mystery alive. Hehehe. Man, you gotta love this place!

On 2002-04-15 13:39, firemind wrote:


The ANC of Nelson Mandela never resorted to terrorism.

The ANC did practice Terror. Try a Google search on "necklacing". HTH
A progressive look at terror from Common Dreams.

Jason and Freddy are fictional characters. Suicide bombers are/were real people who have killed real people.

Personally, I think it's horrifying that younger and younger Palestinians, including young women, are committing these acts of murder. :cry:

Wooh wooh! I never said I SUPPORTED terrorism by the Arab side. I only said that the suicide bombing is their only weapon. You said nothing to contradict this except to yell "false false Eric". It is not false; it is true.

I am no fan of Arafat, but you have painted a one-sided picture of a man who has done his best to negotiate a peace treaty, while the Israelis back out everytime some terrorist whom Arafat does not control lobs a bomb.

To say that Israel is not committing terrorism, as you did above, is merely to reveal your ignorance of the current situation. Read the news and get back to me.

You agree with Tristan that all Arabs want to throw Israel into the sea. How is that not prejudice and ignorance? Of course tha Arabs engage in propaganda. The Israelis don't? They didn't elect a warcriminal as their prime minister? Of course they did.

My contention is, offer the Arabs a just deal, and there's chance for peace. I have outlined that deal. But this peace has a chance only if Israel does not back out of it whenever Hamas blows someone up.

It will take cooperation on both sides to arrest the terrorists. You recall I also posted that I don't have confidence in Arafat to do this. But both sides have to deal with whomever each side has elected, even if they are aggressive fools like Sharon and Arafat. Not to do so is cowardly and warlike; that is all.

Nice pictures BTW.

XOE: Hint: "FANTASY"... "REALITY"...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-15 13:59 ]</font>

On 2002-04-15 13:31, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-04-15 12:29, madscientist wrote:

For lost civility on the forums.

Robert, in the first place, we all probably spend the majority of our time talking about things other than the Bush administration or neocons. The poster is referring to the minority of the time when Marc stirs up the same controversies with us and we stir him up in return. Nothing has changed here. There is a central aspect of gamesmanship and we are willing participants. But this is not incivility. If that were the case, we would no longer be exercising our gamesmanship with each other. But we continue to play the game and that is because we are still civil.

There is a consistency about the poster in question. He/she has more than once acted offended because neocons and/or the Bush administration have not been placed on a pedestal by all parties here. Tough. They may think that they have God on their side but some of us beg to differ. Furthermore, the poster in question, if I am not mistaken, has even posted something ghastly about wanting to rip the entrails out of Iraqis or something to that effect. That is not just uncivil; it is uncivilized. None of the neocon and/or Bush critics have posted anything remotely similar that I recall. And none of the neocon and/or Bush critics have even considered complaining about the uncivilized nature of the poster's brutal prescription...free speech should be respected after all. The poster is a neocon and/or Bush administration shill and obviously and predictably doth protest too much.

True.

Ghandi's methods are a fine ideal. To expect everyone to use them when under brutal oppression is simply to grasp at straws to avoid facing the truth of what I said regarding the Palestinians' predicament. They are not saints or examples of futuristic political idealism. They are one side of a seemingly never-ending battle. To solve it, it will take the USA and Europe and everyone else to see things in their true light, and not say that one side wants nothing else but to totally destroy their enemy. FYI it was the Palestinians who in the past have been the first to negotiate, and the Israelis who have stalled.

It is only peace that is in the interest of each side. To "know which side you are on" Firemind is in effect to be against BOTH sides. The real interests of Israel are to learn to behave with its neighbor, and that is also the real interests of their neighbor.
Sheesh yourself :razz:

Also FYI "Jews" does not equal "Israelis" and "Arabs" does not equal "Palestinians".

On 2002-04-15 13:54, Eric A Meece wrote:
Wooh wooh! I never said I SUPPORTED terrorism by the Arab side. I only said that the suicide bombing is their only weapon.

That's like saying the Old South had no alternative to slavery. It is a key bullet point to Palestinian propaganda, which has obviously worked on you.

You said nothing to contradict this except to yell "false false Eric". It is not false; it is true.

On the contrary, I brought up alternative models of resistance. (Gandhi, Mandela) It is you who are ignoring valid arguments.

I am no fan of Arafat, but you have painted a one-sided picture of a man who has done his best to negotiate a peace treaty, while the Israelis back out everytime some terrorist whom Arafat does not control lobs a bomb.

There's another bullet point. Been watching a lot of Al Jezeera, Eric?

Arafat signs the frickin' checks, Eric.

You are so behind in the public rhetoric. Just yesterday, Arafat's wife expressed support of terrorism (again).

To say that Israel is not committing terrorism, as you did above, is merely to reveal your ignorance of the current situation. Read the news and get back to me.

There goes bullet point three: claim moral equivalence of terrorism with military campaigns against terrorist networks. Couldn't you at least read them in a different order than the Palestinian memo, to make it seem like you're making it up yourself.

You agree with Tristan that all Arabs want to throw Israel into the sea. How is that not prejudice and ignorance?

You're right, it's not ALL Arabs, but it is ALL of their leadership, and MOST of their population.

To answer your question, it's not prejudice and ignorance when it is, essentially, true.

Of course tha Arabs engage in propaganda. The Israelis don't? They didn't elect a warcriminal as their prime minister? Of course they did.

Bullet point #4, right on schedule. You're so predictable.

(I'm going to post and come back later.

I don't want to pick nits, but the original Kool-Aid drinkers attended the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests, back in 1965 - when LSD was still legal.


Jonestown didn't happen until '78, which just shows how the turnings can even affect such a mundane thing as Kool-Aid.

Personally, I have to prefer the LSD version ... but that's just me :grin:

To call me predictable, but not to answer my points, is not very impressive firemind. Maybe you need to still the fires in your mind long enough to allow some light in. I still say, read the news and get back to me. The Israelis have used terror on many occasions and are doing it now. Why deny it? Their response to Hamas bombings is to kill 3 to 5 times more people, mow them down in the streets, bury them in mass graves, destroy their homes, confiscate their land, and censor the news.

YOu said ALL the Arab leadership wants to shove Israel into the sea. Then why did Arafat agree to peace treaties that recognize Israel? Why did all the Arab governments just recently propose to do the same?

So why firemind do YOU support terrorism while I am against it?

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-04-15 14:28 ]</font>

On 2002-04-15 13:54, Eric A Meece wrote:
don't? They didn't elect a warcriminal as their prime minister? Of course they did.

Bullet point #4: Slander Sharon as a war criminal.

Here:

http://www.reuters.com/news_article....StoryID=797467

is described a situation functionally equivalent to the situation Sharon is called a war criminal for.

The situation with Sharon was around 700 people werw massacred in Lebanon by a "Christian" Lebonese militia who Sharon allowed to have control in an area. It is not a matter of dispute that Sharon, when he learned what was happening, immediately did what he could to stop it. The question at hand was whether he should have known what would happen.

The situation in the link involves the slaughter of TEN TIMES that number of moslems in Srebrenica by Serbs, under the noses of a Dutch battalion which did nothing to stop the slaughter, even with full knowledge of what was going on.

The "International Court" in the Hague, of course, will not find the leader of the Dutch battalion to be a "war criminal". That honor is for Sharon alone.

My contention is, offer the Arabs a just deal, and there's chance for peace. I have outlined that deal. But this peace has a chance only if Israel does not back out of it whenever Hamas blows someone up.

What you describe has happened many, many times. The Israelis are very patient with terror bombing, and have frequently continued talking when they occur. But they cannot continue that forever.

It will take cooperation on both sides to arrest the terrorists.

I don't recall us needing cooperation from the Taliban to arrest terrorists in Afghanistan.

You recall I also posted that I don't have confidence in Arafat to do this. But both sides have to deal with whomever each side has elected,

Rather than bother with the tedious details of staging another mock election, Arafat simply extends his "presidency" indefinately. Face facts, man. There are no Palestinian elections. Ask yourself, who is Arafat's challenger? Why has he been the leader so long, when Israeli prime ministers come and go?

Note Mandela's alternative example, stepping down voluntarily to establish a tradition of peacedul transfer-of-power in a fledgling democracy. Very "George Washington" of him. There is good leadership. You won't be seeing that from Arafat.

<FONT SIZE="+1">
"Peace and love, Eric!"








You will know them by their fruits.
Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs
from thistles, are they? --Matthew 7:16</FONT>



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-15 14:41 ]</font>

On 2002-04-15 14:25, Eric A Meece wrote:
To call me predictable, but not to answer my points, is not very impressive firemind.

Cheap shot, Eric. I had to go. As you see (above), I did come back.

Maybe you need to still the fires in your mind long enough to allow some light in.

Blah blah blah.

I still say, read the news and get back to me. The Israelis have used terror on many occasions and are doing it now. Why deny it?

Because it is false.

Their response to Hamas bombings is to kill 3 to 5 times more people

It's a war, man. We killed more Japanese than they killed us, but that doesn't mean they were right.

, mow them down in the streets,

Yep, when they attack.

bury them in mass graves,

Uh-uh, never happened. Where are you getting this crap?

destroy their homes

Yep, sometimes, when it helps their soldiers survive. It's called war.

confiscate their land,

Yes, sometimes, and sometimes they give it back, too. What's your point?

and censor the news.

Any censorship on the Israeli side pales in insignificance to that found in Arab countries.

YOu said ALL the Arab leadership wants to shove Israel into the sea. Then why did Arafat agree to peace treaties that recognize Israel?

Actually, he didn't; he launched a new intifada instead. But that doesn't matter, because it is a demonstrated fact that ARAFAT LIES.

Why did all the Arab governments just recently propose to do the same?

They were hoping we'd fall for it again.

So why firemind do YOU support terrorism while I am against it?

Don't try to weasel out of it. You have implied your support for terror bombing by saying the Palestinians have no other option.

Your lame, tired attempt to establish moral equivalance between terrorism and defensive military campaigns is a throwback to barbarism.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-04-15 14:59 ]</font>