Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
140 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - Who do you think is the most racist?
Regardless, HOW DO YOU JUDGE A CONFLICT, CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?
The answer is obviously my own moral criteria, what else?
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 7:55 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
berzerker wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
Regardless, HOW DO YOU JUDGE A CONFLICT, CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION?
The answer is obviously my own moral criteria, what else?
And what are your basic moral principles based on?
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:55 am
burningdickman
Troll++
Joined: Jul 20, 2013
Posts: 280
And another thread derailed. Lovely, absolutely lovely.
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:59 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
burningdickman wrote:
And another thread derailed. Lovely, absolutely lovely.
What's derailed about the thread? It is still about Pogma's racism.
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:00 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Pogma9 wrote:
And what are your basic moral principles based on?
On my nature and nurture, the latter more than the former I suppose.
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 1:11 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
berzerker wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
And what are your basic moral principles based on?
On my nature and nurture, the latter more than the former I suppose.
VAGUE SHIT DEVOID OF ANY ACTUAL MORAL PRINCIPLES
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 2:55 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Pogma9 wrote:
berzerker wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
And what are your basic moral principles based on?
On my nature and nurture, the latter more than the former I suppose.
VAGUE SHIT DEVOID OF ANY ACTUAL MORAL PRINCIPLES
It's a vague question, you got the appropriate answer.
One fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise man can answer.
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 11:39 pm
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
THX FOR ADMITTING YOU HAVE NO BASIC MORAL PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH YOU RENDER MORAL JUDGMENTS.
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:17 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
I admitted nothing of the sort. You have trouble enough explaining your own words, don't put any in my mouth please.
BTW how do you explain that holocaust denial is illegal in some countries, but not in the country where, according to you, the jews control everything through the mass media, viz the US?
Last edited by berzerker on Sun Sep 28, 2014 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:51 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
BTW I ran into an interesting quote from Ben-Gurion, prime minister of Israel, during the second truce in the first Arab-Israeli war (that is within a year after the jews declared the existence of Israel):
Quote:
Were it possible to achieve the minimum through an agreement with the Arabs - I would do it, because I am full of fear and dread of the militarization of the youth in our state. I already see it in the souls of the children, and I did not dream of such a people and I don't want it.
It seems his fears were fully justified, given that Israel is now, 66 years later, still one of the most militarised countries in the world.
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:39 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
berzerker wrote:
I admitted nothing of the sort. You have trouble enough explaining your own words, don't put any in my mouth please.
Do you KNOW WHAT A MORAL PRINCIPLE IS?...IF SO, GIVE US SOME OF THE ONE'S YOU USE WHEN EVALUATING CONFLICT?
Quote:
BTW how do you explain that holocaust denial is illegal in some countries, but not in the country where, according to you, the jews control everything through the mass media, viz the US?
I don't care about these stupid questions, all I care about are the real facts and physical evidence, and none of it supports the gassing/burning of 6 million Jews.
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 8:41 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
berzerker wrote:
BTW I ran into an interesting quote from Ben-Gurion, prime minister of Israel,
FOCUS ON WHAT PEOPLE DO AS WELL AS WHAT THEY SAY....and when we look at Israel, we see a military supapower offside with it's neighbours.
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:06 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Pogma9 wrote:
FOCUS ON WHAT PEOPLE DO AS WELL AS WHAT THEY SAY....and when we look at Israel, we see a military supapower offside with it's neighbours.
Sigh, this was 1948, no Israel was mililary insignificant at the time.
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:08 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Pogma9 wrote:
berzerker wrote:
I admitted nothing of the sort. You have trouble enough explaining your own words, don't put any in my mouth please.
Do you KNOW WHAT A MORAL PRINCIPLE IS?.
Yes, someone who had one once told me.
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:37 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
berzerker wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
berzerker wrote:
I admitted nothing of the sort. You have trouble enough explaining your own words, don't put any in my mouth please.
Do you KNOW WHAT A MORAL PRINCIPLE IS?.
Yes, someone who had one once told me.
CAN U DETAIL SOME OF THEM AS IT RELATES TO CONFLICT?
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:39 am
Pogma9
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 2522
berzerker wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
FOCUS ON WHAT PEOPLE DO AS WELL AS WHAT THEY SAY....and when we look at Israel, we see a military supapower offside with it's neighbours.
Sigh, this was 1948, no Israel was mililary insignificant at the time.
So....they barged in and created a state for themselves, how should their neighbours react, and also, how many of Israel's neighbours are onside NOW in 2014??
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 1:33 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Pogma9 wrote:
berzerker wrote:
Pogma9 wrote:
FOCUS ON WHAT PEOPLE DO AS WELL AS WHAT THEY SAY....and when we look at Israel, we see a military supapower offside with it's neighbours.
Sigh, this was 1948, no Israel was mililary insignificant at the time.
So....they barged in and created a state for themselves, how should their neighbours react, and also, how many of Israel's neighbours are onside NOW in 2014??
That's something completely different, i.e. a fallacy. I'm fine if you want to discuss this matter, but don't make it appear as if you tried to discuss matter all the time, because you did not.
Anyway, they were allowed in, first in limited numbers by the Ottomans, and after 1918 (in varying numbers) by the English, based on the Balfour declaration. Towards the end of the 30's the English basically tried to curb the immigration, because of Arab pressure, and only then you could argue that some 'barged in'.
There is a case to be made for both sides. The Jews argued that they had no land of their own whatsoever, that this was their homeland, and that the Arabs had gotten multiple nations after 1918: was it, in these circumstances, really unreasonable for them to ask for one barren corner of this land?
Less defendable is the fact that the jews actively rejected majority rule (i.e. democracy), because that would give power to the Arabs, who would then curb immigration and expel immigrants. The argument they used there is that the whole point of having a country is that they would finally have a home, i.e. a place where they had a majority and were in control. What else would change for them compared to where they had fled from? And, in retrospect, history have shown that Arabs and democracy don't mix well (recent examples of Iraq and Egypt show that the majority couldn't care less about minorities).
But from the viewpoint of the Arabs, clearly none of this carries much weight. Why would they need to give up anything merely because jews had gotten mistreated in Europe? Let Europe set aside a country for the jews, and this is a pretty argument IMHO.
Last edited by berzerker on Sun Sep 28, 2014 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 1:36 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Pogma9 wrote:
CAN U DETAIL SOME OF THEM AS IT RELATES TO CONFLICT?
I have no idea what you are steering at, please elaborate. You are asking a generic and vague question, so you get answers to match.
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:31 am
FUCK_YOU_ALL
A Winner is me!
Joined: Feb 02, 2009
Posts: 630
Location: Why so serious? Seriously, why? It doesn't make sense.
Alright, berzerker. YOu are a fucking faggot. but anwyays:
Question for you:
naw, more like a statement for you:
quit your bitchin, and get this FACT. INTO your mind: GET THIS FUCKING THING INTO YOUR MIND RIGHT NOW, THE FOLLOWING, that is. THIS-:
Location: Why so serious? Seriously, why? It doesn't make sense.
FUCK_YOU_ALL wrote:
Snippet from da book I posted about:
*President Jackson Had Defeated the Bankers - Morgan Helps Get McKinley Elected – Sets Stage For War*
*US Military Used As Enforcement Arm of Jewish Oligarchy*
It is important to remember that President Andrew Jackson, who took down the banker’s system in the United States, and got the country out of debt, pushed hard for a gold and silver currency system.
In President Jackson’s Seventh Annual Message of 7 December 1835, some of the points he covered were:
- The US Debt was paid off now.
- That gold and silver as circulating medium was almost ready.
He tells Congress to find what has stopped correct legislation to protect against corporations. He names the political creed of the system that is at war with us and says it will first acquire control over the labor and earnings of the people. He says severing the Bank has to some extent severed a dangerous connection between a moneyed and
political power. He says a monopoly group is trying to get in using railroads. He talks about someone is trying to excite the slaves to revolt, and mentions foreign emissaries. (This is the bankers - Rothschilds - beginning moves for another War, this far back, and Jackson knows it, he doesn’t miss much.)
He calls for a law limiting the circulating of these inflammatory slave materials through the mail. After Jackson was no longer President, the jewish oligarchy continued to make moves towards getting the
United States under their control.
The Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, a Jewish Scottish Rite Freemasonry
lodge, was formed in New York in 1843.
An alternate name for the I.O.B.B. is the New World Order.
The Whig political party favored the bankers. It evolved into the Republican party.
President Lincoln was a Republican president and the civil war began in 1861, resulting in getting the U.S. government back into debt to the bankers.
The period following the Civil War was marked by railroad building, mining, and industrialization. Thus developed an economy based on steel, oil, railroads, and machines. Mammoth corporations such as the Standard
Oil trust were formed, and “captains of industry” like John D. Rockefeller and financiers like J.P. Morgan controlled huge resources.
The Sherman AntiTrust Act was passed in 1890. Then came the financial panic of 1893. The Democratic party represented the hardships experienced by the common people and stood for the free
coinage of silver (as had been advocated by President Jackson) and sought other aids for the debtor class.
The oligarchy - Morgan, Rothschild etc. - was pushing for a gold standard only. The Democratic party wanted to follow Jackson’s idea of having silver and gold coins as the currency for the country.
*1896 – June 10 – Election Year*
When Mr. Morgan met the reporters he gave them an interview on the monetary system and politics in which he said:
"The dominating question is the currency problem. If that is settled satisfactorily Europe will buy our securities. If it is not, she won’t. That is all there is to be said. By a satisfactory settlement of the currency I mean a decision that this country will maintain the single gold standard."
The outstanding Democratic candidate was William Jennings Bryan. He had been the most eloquent advocate of free coinage of silver, unhampered by any considerations of banking or international business relations, of which he knew nothing.
Bryan was a supporter of popular democracy, a critic of banks and railroads, a leader of the silverite movement in the 1890s, and a peace advocate. Because of his faith in the goodness and rightness of the common people, he was called "The Great Commoner."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 9 of 11Goto page Previous1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11Next
