Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7065

Miller wrote:

Oh by the way, FOX is honest because they show BOTH sides of the story. Hanity & Colmes is one example.  Now go to a liberal station and you get Conservatives like John Mcain (however its spelled) who is in my opinion not even a conservative republican but a spineless one if at all. He should be considered a Left-winger due to the fact he supports them not the Right.
Thats obvious but These people only hear what they want to. save your breath.

Whats funny is that when you talk to a Worldly know it all who is nothing but pompess and condesending you find out in another thread that he is an Art Student supported by his parents and has not even graduated yet.
In the " Define a liberal " post I did an outline on the perameters of the typical Liberal. Man did they go berserk. Of course later on I found out why.
" I am an Art major graduating in may With an AAS in Art as a medium in Space exploration ! "

ROFLMAO F
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6903|Canberra, AUS

Horseman 77 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


Too bad the UN is an international joke.
to bad the UN is an "international joke" because of the superpowers' ( specifically the US ) lack of support for the UN. By its nature, the UN can only be as strong as its members make it to be. It is not the UN's job to serve the interests of the US or the western nations. Instead, they were designed to serve the best interest of all the nations on the planet, to provide an opportunity for peaceful dialog and for resolving conflicts between nations peacefully. In those instances when this hasn't worked out, it has only been due to the unwillingness of the participants to put the world's best interest above their own...

Considering the hundreds of peacekeeping missions the UN has performed, and their work for refugees and the underprivileged all around the world, I can say with some confidence that the UN is truly one of the greatest achievements of mankind since WWII.
1 The USA was the biggest instrument in the UNs creation.

2 You did notice where the UN is located.

3 The US is one member of the UNs Thousands of members who all have votes.

4 History shows us it is the third world nations leaders who become the most corrupt
   and exploit the UN the most.

5 You will notice these peace keeping missions are performed by Predominately if not always by US Forces.

6 if the UN is any achievement at all it is an achievement that can be 95% attributed to the USA's efforts.

While I am at, it was France and Great Britain's behavior at the End of World War One that lead to World War Two.

When the USA had a greater hand in it, We ( THE USA ) instituted the Marshal Plan. Which saved Post War Germany. We had trials For your great wise worldly and culturally advanced leaders, Not mass executions like Some allies wanted. We didn't have the Massive " Rape fest " that the Soviets promoted in Berlin. And it was the USA that fed Germany and got it on its feet and protected it from the USSR.

When the biggest impact your country has had on modern history is " The Death Camp " I would think you would be more tolerant when a nation at least tries to do it correctly.
Correct on all fronts (especially the WWI/WWII bit!)

I thought, however, that the UN security council is very-undermocratic. I thought it was 1 vote for the US, 1 vote for Britain, 1 vote for all the Allies, and 1 vote for everyone else.

Very fair.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Towelly
It's A State Of Mind
+399|6819|Your attic
While I am at, it was France and Great Britain's behavior at the End of World War One that lead to World War Two.

When the USA had a greater hand in it, We ( THE USA ) instituted the Marshal Plan. Which saved Post War Germany. We had trials For your great wise worldly and culturally advanced leaders, Not mass executions like Some allies wanted. We didn't have the Massive " Rape fest " that the Soviets promoted in Berlin. And it was the USA that fed Germany and got it on its feet and protected it from the USSR.

When the biggest impact your country has had on modern history is " The Death Camp " I would think you would be more tolerant when a nation at least tries to do it correctly.
First off you can't blaim the UK or France for causing WWII, well you can just not solely. There were hundreds of contributing factors, a few of which can be blaimed upon the USA.

First the Wall Street crash, caused the US to call in billions of dollors (or marks) in loans, this led to the second depression in Germany, which is understood to be one of the factors that allowed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party (after failing once) to come to power. If the US had allowed Germany a decent ammount of time to pay back these loans then it is pluasable that there could have been no war, obvioulsy it is unlikely considering the instability of the Weimar Republic but it was a factor.

Second for most of WWII America stood watching, it was only once they were directly attacked that the US got into the war, D-Day had already been planned and formulated but was then backed up by US troops, now I am not saying and never would say that all the US troops that died on the beaches of normandy died in vain, but the Allies would most likely of began pushing back the Nazi troops, the US marines allowed the attack to be much more effective and in practice end the war, the fact still remains that without the US the war (in europe) would still have been won.

The war in the pacific is a topic I do not know much about, but I can say that the US here did have a complete victory, with little or no aid from anyone else.

Now post WWII the Allies did not want to simply line up and shoot every single Nazi, yes a few high rankers of the Allies wanted a few influencial Nazi members killed, but their crimes envolved killing of innocent people, for no other reason then the relgion they belong to, the colour of their skin or the culture they were born into.

Now,on topic, I beleive that at this moment, no-one who has access to nuclear armaments would fire them on any other country, for the simple fact that the reaction from every other nuclear power would be to fire apon them. However as soon as 100% effective missle defene systems begin to become reality this may change.
BurlySmurf
Member
+1|6983|Nellis AFB
The nuclear weapons we have today are MUCH more powerful than the ones used on Japan. When the time finally comes that some dumb ass out there uses one. Alot of people will end up using them.
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6911|Stillwater, Ok
Yeah we don't want to deliver any of those bad boys we have.  Something about nuclear winter doesnt sit too well with me.  We do have missiles that can intercept incoming ICBM's but they are largely in the test phase.  On the other note though we do have a laser that can actually track down and shoot an artillery shell, plane, missile, or whatever else it pleases out of the air. Worst comes to worst and EMP missile detonating around the ICBM would be just as effective.....scramble the whole computer system, fry it and then it would fly off course.  And ICBM doesn't fully arm untill its in its last stage of  Re-entry and spreads it war heads out.  So as long as we disrupt it before it tries to reenter the atmosphere then nothing will happen.
Nehby
Member
+1|6905

Towelly wrote:

While I am at, it was France and Great Britain's behavior at the End of World War One that lead to World War Two.

When the USA had a greater hand in it, We ( THE USA ) instituted the Marshal Plan. Which saved Post War Germany. We had trials For your great wise worldly and culturally advanced leaders, Not mass executions like Some allies wanted. We didn't have the Massive " Rape fest " that the Soviets promoted in Berlin. And it was the USA that fed Germany and got it on its feet and protected it from the USSR.

When the biggest impact your country has had on modern history is " The Death Camp " I would think you would be more tolerant when a nation at least tries to do it correctly.
First off you can't blaim the UK or France for causing WWII, well you can just not solely. There were hundreds of contributing factors, a few of which can be blaimed upon the USA.

First the Wall Street crash, caused the US to call in billions of dollors (or marks) in loans, this led to the second depression in Germany, which is understood to be one of the factors that allowed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party (after failing once) to come to power. If the US had allowed Germany a decent ammount of time to pay back these loans then it is pluasable that there could have been no war, obvioulsy it is unlikely considering the instability of the Weimar Republic but it was a factor.

Second for most of WWII America stood watching, it was only once they were directly attacked that the US got into the war, D-Day had already been planned and formulated but was then backed up by US troops, now I am not saying and never would say that all the US troops that died on the beaches of normandy died in vain, but the Allies would most likely of began pushing back the Nazi troops, the US marines allowed the attack to be much more effective and in practice end the war, the fact still remains that without the US the war (in europe) would still have been won.

The war in the pacific is a topic I do not know much about, but I can say that the US here did have a complete victory, with little or no aid from anyone else.

Now post WWII the Allies did not want to simply line up and shoot every single Nazi, yes a few high rankers of the Allies wanted a few influencial Nazi members killed, but their crimes envolved killing of innocent people, for no other reason then the relgion they belong to, the colour of their skin or the culture they were born into.

Now,on topic, I beleive that at this moment, no-one who has access to nuclear armaments would fire them on any other country, for the simple fact that the reaction from every other nuclear power would be to fire apon them. However as soon as 100% effective missle defene systems begin to become reality this may change.
You sure you are talking about the same WW1 and WW2?

If I remember correctly the US mainly gave loans to the Allies, who all (but Finland) defaulted on the loans .
It was France and Britian who called from the massive reparations from Germany. The US called for a less drastic approach *cough* Wilson's fourteen points*cough*. SO you can see that the European allies caused the second depression in Germany, not the US.

Yes the US did sit out the first part of WW2, you know why? The reason is that after the first world war the Allies screwed the US out of millions of dollars whe nthey all defaulted on their war loans. So as you can guess the US didn't feel like getting screwed over again.

As for the war in Europe, it is possible that Russia would have pushed back the Germans without US support to the allies, but remember without the US it would have been only a one front war for Germany. US support to Britain is the only reason it was still in the war and without it Hitler would have been able to focus more troops on the attack into Russia and could have then won it. So US supplies and troops caused Hitler to spread his forces too thin and lose as bad as he did.

So as we can see Britain France and the other European allies cause the second world war and would have likely lost if the US hadn't come to their aid.

As for nukes, the Cold War caused so many to be stockpiled that any country who would dare use one, better use enough to wipe out all the other nuclear powers or face a massive nuclear counter attack from them.
mp30
Cynicism is an art, right?
+13|6959|It Rarely Rains in Seattle

Horseman 77 wrote:

mp30 wrote:

Nuclear weapons were rendered useless as an actual weapon as a result of the mass proliferation, they now exist only as weapons of fear. Considering that, there is absolutely no logical or remotely possible situation where I see the United States ever using nuclear weapons, modern warfare and enemies make the weapons obsolete as I mentioned before. They are still effective as a means of detente to a certain extent, but even that effect seems to be wavering, we cannot jeapordize our international position by even considering their use. The world understood their effect quite immediately after WWII, and just the fact that the Cold War remained cold shows the reluctance of any legitimate power to use such weaponry( a bit of a naive analysis of the Cold War, but it makes a simple point also).


Watch "Dr. Stranglove", then you'll get it.
Comparatively crude targeting systems in the Fifties and Sixties needed larger warheads to compensate. The yield on modern Nuclear strike weapons is very small in comparison to warheads from the Fifties and Sixties, so yes it is feasible that they could be used and even very effectively.  Dr. Strangelove was a Dark comedy film made by an industry that doesn't come close to any understanding of reality. The same people hold child rapists in high regard. To take your cues from them seems naive. If our " International Position " becomes one of Survival I will sign off on a Nuclear strike for what its worth.
History shows us the Cold War stayed Cold because the USSR didn't acquire the means to do otherwise.
Now that The P.R.C. has " Over the Pole ICBM Guidance technology" provided by clinton, we may be edging to another cold war.

I hope you meant deterrent not  " detente " the word is obsolete and no longer applicable.

mp30 wrote:

Will someone explain to me the logic behind noting FOX news as a conservative network.
People note Fox news as conservative because they are honest. ( the people )

99% of the mass media is heavy left wing liberal, Yet they don't admit it.

They are dishonest. Get it?
I was considering nuclear weapons purely from a political viewpoint not strategic. I agree entirely that we could use the weapons quite effectively now as a result of advanced techniques for their application. However, the repercussions of such use would be overwhelming, and while I am not concerned about our position among the international community, it is still important.  And even in the fifties we never pursued weapons of overwhelming size for the fact that we were capable of strategically using them, this pattern of thought is not new. Detente I will agree is far from useful, but it was the easiest way to address the issue in a manner which sought brevity.

And to imply that I support the likes of certain individuals in the various medias shows a blatant disrespect for what I intended and for me. And nonetheless, comparing the movie industry of today with that of sixty years ago is rather naive, as well is assuming that all film is without merit. If you were assuming that I saw a valuable truth that addressed all aspects of the geopolitical climate at the time and of the nuclear age at large, then I can assure you it did not. The film did have a simple point though, and a valid one at that.

And explain to me when I implied that the majority of all media does not have a heavy liberal stance? I was asserting the fact that Fox is in no way, shape, or form a conservative media network. Brit Hume talking with a panel of pseudo-conservatives and liberals, and Greta yapping about abducted women a conservative network does not make, it is no different than CNN. People note Fox as conservative because they are stupid and/or biased to the point of lunacy. And I can not atone for the sheeple that ingest any of the media from those alphabet networks. Get it? (Sorry Michael Savage, the words fit)

Did the Cold War every actually end? I'm not so sure. One threat replaced the other quite quickly.

Last edited by mp30 (2006-04-23 23:13:57)

mp30
Cynicism is an art, right?
+13|6959|It Rarely Rains in Seattle

Miller wrote:

Oh by the way, FOX is honest because they show BOTH sides of the story. Hanity & Colmes is one example.  Now go to a liberal station and you get Conservatives like John Mcain (however its spelled) who is in my opinion not even a conservative republican but a spineless one if at all. He should be considered a Left-winger due to the fact he supports them not the Right.
A failed comedian they found lounging around in the back is not the other side of the story. And don't try to convince me that O'Reilly is conservative, he is moderate at best. Nonetheless, telling us about the latest update from Aruba, atrocities at Club Gitmo, and a skosh about some Marines dying  does not makes it any different than the rest of those networks. ( Do I listen to Rush? Uh oh. He may not be the best, but his is 1. Entertaining, and 2. At least a true conservative on the majority of relevant topics.) Right you are about McCain though.

Last edited by mp30 (2006-04-23 23:11:14)

B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7069|Cologne, Germany

Horseman 77 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


Too bad the UN is an international joke.
to bad the UN is an "international joke" because of the superpowers' ( specifically the US ) lack of support for the UN. By its nature, the UN can only be as strong as its members make it to be. It is not the UN's job to serve the interests of the US or the western nations. Instead, they were designed to serve the best interest of all the nations on the planet, to provide an opportunity for peaceful dialog and for resolving conflicts between nations peacefully. In those instances when this hasn't worked out, it has only been due to the unwillingness of the participants to put the world's best interest above their own...

Considering the hundreds of peacekeeping missions the UN has performed, and their work for refugees and the underprivileged all around the world, I can say with some confidence that the UN is truly one of the greatest achievements of mankind since WWII.
1 The USA was the biggest instrument in the UNs creation.

2 You did notice where the UN is located.

3 The US is one member of the UNs Thousands of members who all have votes.

4 History shows us it is the third world nations leaders who become the most corrupt
   and exploit the UN the most.

5 You will notice these peace keeping missions are performed by Predominately if not always by US Forces.

6 if the UN is any achievement at all it is an achievement that can be 95% attributed to the USA's efforts.

While I am at, it was France and Great Britain's behavior at the End of World War One that lead to World War Two.

When the USA had a greater hand in it, We ( THE USA ) instituted the Marshal Plan. Which saved Post War Germany. We had trials For your great wise worldly and culturally advanced leaders, Not mass executions like Some allies wanted. We didn't have the Massive " Rape fest " that the Soviets promoted in Berlin. And it was the USA that fed Germany and got it on its feet and protected it from the USSR.

When the biggest impact your country has had on modern history is " The Death Camp " I would think you would be more tolerant when a nation at least tries to do it correctly.
@1: that was after WWII. I was refering to current events.

@2: yeah, I did. what are you saying ?

@3: you know all too well, that as a permament member of the Security council, the US vote carries considerably more weigth than those of standard members, especially considering a veto from a SC member can block any move there.

@4: so ? I didn't accuse the US of being corrupt or exploiting the UN, did I ? what point are you trying to make ?

@5: I'll check on that.

@6: your opinion, I guess.

as far as your last comments are concerned, I don't know why you would even bring that up. I was questioning the US support for the UN with regard to current events, especially the Iraq war and the upcoming Iran crisis.
I did not say that the US has never done anything good, and I do appreciate what they have done to help rebuilding germany after WWII.
But that surely doesn't mean I cannot criticize what they do today. I'd say we both were born way after WWII. I did not attack Poland, and I did not gas jews. You did not fight the Nazis and can't take credit for it.
Still, you seem to think you are somehow morally superior to me. Why is that ?

Horseman_77 wrote:

When the biggest impact your country has had on modern history is " The Death Camp " I would think you would be more tolerant when a nation at least tries to do it correctly.
wow...just when I think you can't get any lower, you prove me wrong. Apart from the insult, what exactly are you saying ?
mikeshw
Radioactive Glo
+130|7066|A Small Isle in the Tropics

Horseman 77 wrote:

4 History shows us it is the third world nations leaders who become the most corrupt
   and exploit the UN the most.
Care to elaborate on this one?


Horseman 77 wrote:

When the biggest impact your country has had on modern history is " The Death Camp " I would think you would be more tolerant when a nation at least tries to do it correctly.
This was statement was unnecessary, imo.
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6950|Sydney, Australia

mikeshw wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

4 History shows us it is the third world nations leaders who become the most corrupt
   and exploit the UN the most.
Care to elaborate on this one?
If you watch the news you will know about the civil war in Sudan. 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … /sudan.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/232803.stm
The UN is sending aid there, but most of it does not reach the people that need it. The government is stealing the aid.

Another example would be Somalia. Remember "Black Hawk Down"? The leader of the coup who had taken over the country was stealing food aid sent by the UN. Exploiting the UN.
mikeshw
Radioactive Glo
+130|7066|A Small Isle in the Tropics

mcminty wrote:

mikeshw wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

4 History shows us it is the third world nations leaders who become the most corrupt
   and exploit the UN the most.
Care to elaborate on this one?
If you watch the news you will know about the civil war in Sudan. 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … /sudan.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/232803.stm
The UN is sending aid there, but most of it does not reach the people that need it. The government is stealing the aid.

Another example would be Somalia. Remember "Black Hawk Down"? The leader of the coup who had taken over the country was stealing food aid sent by the UN. Exploiting the UN.
Well, ok..now I see the point. But, imo, its over-generalisation. I don't think all Third World nation leaders are corrupt.
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|6950|Sydney, Australia

mikeshw wrote:

Well, ok..now I see the point. But, imo, its over-generalisation. I don't think all Third World nation leaders are corrupt.
It might be an over generallisation but there are probably more corrupt government officials in 3rd world countries that non-corrupt government officials.
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7065
@ MP03 or what ever your nick is,

Fox is one Network out of quite a Few. Can you name another that Doesn't  go " Heavy Left. "

That is Fox net works only real Crime . It doesnt go Heavy left.


To all.....    Sorry about bringing up the Death camps.

I see that is out of bounds for some reason.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-24 15:01:56)

Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7065

mikeshw wrote:

mcminty wrote:

mikeshw wrote:


Care to elaborate on this one?
If you watch the news you will know about the civil war in Sudan. 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … /sudan.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/232803.stm
The UN is sending aid there, but most of it does not reach the people that need it. The government is stealing the aid.

Another example would be Somalia. Remember "Black Hawk Down"? The leader of the coup who had taken over the country was stealing food aid sent by the UN. Exploiting the UN.
Well, ok..now I see the point. But, imo, its over-generalisation. I don't think all Third World nation leaders are corrupt.
I never said they were, I said

"History shows us it is the third world nations leaders who become the most corrupt and exploit the UN the most. "
I could have been clearer, sorry.  My point was more ( When they act on the UNs behalf ) corruption is rife.
mp30
Cynicism is an art, right?
+13|6959|It Rarely Rains in Seattle

Horseman 77 wrote:

@ MP03 or what ever your nick is,

Fox is one Network out of quite a Few. Can you name another that Doesn't  go " Heavy Left. "

That is Fox net works only real Crime . It doesnt go Heavy left.


To all.....    Sorry about bringing up the Death camps.

I see that is out of bounds for some reason.
What is most noteworthy about Fox is that for all of its critics and critiques, it is hardly different than any of the other networks. Its crime is that it doesn't go far enough to the right to counteract the rest and provide the balancing force so dearly needed, and in that I can name no network that does not go left or heavy left. A television network that is even moderate does not exist. And therein is manifested the reason for the resurgence of AM talk radio. But, perhaps I can be adequately subsided by the monopoly on successful talk shows that the right has, perhaps that is enough to counteract the uneven perspective of visual media.

Nice job of condescending me to with the nickname thing though, it truly is difficult to scroll up a fifth of a page.
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6911|Stillwater, Ok
Eh unfortunately too many people would rather watch and listen that to just listen.  So the visual media is far more effective at getting their points across than the AM talk shows.  Not to mention you still have those liberal extremists who start bashing the show host themselves only to get cut off. I do so enjoy those moments when people start talking about military operations and such who have no prior military experience much less those who even understand it.  Example of such...the media griping about the military in New Orleans after Katrina.  For those who don't know what a chain of command is....don't even bother bashing the government on how it was handled.  Because out of ALL and i do mean ALL rescue operation in the US on such a massive scale...this was the fastest one on record.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6872

2ndLt.Tucker wrote:

Eh unfortunately too many people would rather watch and listen that to just listen.  So the visual media is far more effective at getting their points across than the AM talk shows.  Not to mention you still have those liberal extremists who start bashing the show host themselves only to get cut off. I do so enjoy those moments when people start talking about military operations and such who have no prior military experience much less those who even understand it.  Example of such...the media griping about the military in New Orleans after Katrina.  For those who don't know what a chain of command is....don't even bother bashing the government on how it was handled.  Because out of ALL and i do mean ALL rescue operation in the US on such a massive scale...this was the fastest one on record.
+1 for anyone who has worn a uniform
2ndLt.Tucker
If you can read this, your already dead
+33|6911|Stillwater, Ok
Heh thanks i havent been in uniform all that long maybe 2.5 years. But im already working on Staff Srgt. so i know what the hell im doing as far as my job goes.  Having a family with service members in every branch, every generation since the start of the US gives a deep love for the country as well.
JahManRed
wank
+646|6856|IRELAND

Horseman 77 wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


Too bad the UN is an international joke.
4 History shows us it is the third world nations leaders who become the most corrupt
   and exploit the UN the most.
Very true. But what is not mentioned is that most of these dictators in Africa who export their countries oil, filtering the money off to the top generals and the government while the people live in squaller were put there by the CIA. Most of these dictators, just like Saddam are in power to keep the oil flowing. All the evidence you need is the US and Britons failure to help the peoples of these countries who's life expectancy is 15 years less than a typical Iraqi. The answer is, these dictators are playing ball with the oil. Iraq and Iran have one thing in common as far as I can see, apart from hating each other, they both made moves to stop trading oil in “Oil Dollars” and change to Euros. This system of the whole world trading its oil in Dollars helps to keep the US economy so buoyant.

And move the hell on, giving out to a German for something that happened before he was born. How about if we start on you about the slave trade or the Native American abuse?

I have respect for the soilder who goes out and fights for his/hers country and puts their life on the line. I have however, no respect for My Government (British) or the American government who have Systematically lied to us over this war. Even the generals are now saying that its fishy.
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7065

mp30 wrote:

Nice job of condescending me to with the nickname thing though, it truly is difficult to scroll up a fifth of a page.
Sorry on my GFs lap top and Dial up conection it takes ten minutes to scroll up. Why do I get acused of condesending? If I tread heavily. I speak the truth.
mp30
Cynicism is an art, right?
+13|6959|It Rarely Rains in Seattle

Horseman 77 wrote:

mp30 wrote:

Nice job of condescending me to with the nickname thing though, it truly is difficult to scroll up a fifth of a page.
Sorry on my GFs lap top and Dial up conection it takes ten minutes to scroll up. Why do I get acused of condesending? If I tread heavily. I speak the truth.
Treading heavily I do not object to, rather it is quite admirable. Note the wink as well, take it lightly.

Last edited by mp30 (2006-04-25 18:14:44)

B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7069|Cologne, Germany

Horseman 77 wrote:

mp30 wrote:

Nice job of condescending me to with the nickname thing though, it truly is difficult to scroll up a fifth of a page.
Sorry on my GFs lap top and Dial up conection it takes ten minutes to scroll up. Why do I get acused of condesending? If I tread heavily. I speak the truth.
well, others would say you simply stating your opinion. If there is something like the "truth" for every issue, that is...

We all have our personal "truth", don't you think ?
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7065

B.Schuss wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

mp30 wrote:

Nice job of condescending me to with the nickname thing though, it truly is difficult to scroll up a fifth of a page.
Sorry on my GFs lap top and Dial up conection it takes ten minutes to scroll up. Why do I get acused of condesending? If I tread heavily. I speak the truth.
well, others would say you simply stating your opinion. If there is something like the "truth" for every issue, that is...

We all have our personal "truth", don't you think ?
The truth can be boiled down to " what is and What ain't "

Anyone who argues about what " is " means is a liar.

If the shark was 8 feet long, I say

"It was 8 feet long."

If it looked 8 feet long but I didn't measure it. I say

"it looked 8 feet long but I didn't measure it. "

I am not trying to acheive some moral high ground either I am just to lazy to lie.
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7069|Cologne, Germany

well, in that case, the "truth" is relative to the efforts you undertake to verify what you put forward as the "truth".

Still, I do believe there is a difference between what can be validated through research ( with more or less effort, depending on the topic at hand and everyone's possibilities ) and what is purely opinion ( and can therefore never be validated ).

The important thing is, of course, to be able to distinguish between the two...

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard