Obama preaching to schools

[JCC]

Of course it's not fucking true, even if Obama didn't care about nuclear stockpiling, and I don't know how you could deduce that America isn't currently on its toes about Iran, what the fuck would that have to do with marxism, Corleone?

[Still Jack]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

Actually No...neither of them vote.

Your parents are complete cunts. People died to have the right to vote, in some countries people get their hands cut off for voting and STILL go back and vote a second time because having a vote matters that much and your fucking parents squander it ??!!

[creature6]

i do believe that's voting is important but i think you should vote when you are mature enough and do understand politic .

[creature6]

"You gave a viewpoint that you apparently can't support, since you didn't answer my question."
based on the fact that i did not run and give you an answer.
As i said before i do not discuss politic with people who behave in a childish way.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by creature6

As i said before i do not discuss politic with people who behave in a childish way.

You can call me childish as much as you want to, the fact of the matter remains: you claimed that the president should be shot for being a socialist, and then didn't provide any basis for it whatsoever. And now by continuing to call me childish and refusing to argue, it would seem that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about and are trying to find a cop out.

And by the way, your use of the English language is horrible.

[creature6]

viscus,
va te faire foutre.
tes conneries de gamines ne m'interesse pas.
si tu cherche quelqu'un pour avoir une dispute verbale,
tu as frappe a la mauvaise porte.

[Delkaetre]

Using French doesn't help your point. You've made two completely unfounded statements and refused to provide any kind of evidence or justification to back them up. You claim you want to discuss the points at hand? Then discuss. If you think others are childish, you can't rise above them by calling them names and telling them to go play with dollies. You can show that you're better than them by answering them with justifications of such brilliance that they either can't argue or must be converted to your viewpoint.

Don't just insult people or wander off to talk in another language. That helps no one, least of all yourself.

[creature6]

comment je ne parle pas anglais!

[creature6]

i leave that thread to whoever is happy with it.
i certainly don't need your advices on how i should be and what i should.
how is possible to be discussing this suject with people like yourself and her.
i simply refuse to do so.
that's my own choice after all.
i certainly don't need a teacher .

i leave you all to your old ways.

[Delkaetre]

With respect, I suggest that you do need a teacher, a tutor, or at least someone who might teach you the basic tenets of good manners. Your behaviour and manner of speech do not suggest someone who is able to communicate with others in a sensible, mature or even polite way.

But you are, of course, welcome to leave. I trust that if you leave, you won't be returning- after all, what could there be for you here? Given your apparent views about us, there is no reason for you to be here unless you're actively trying to start arguments, bicker, insult others, or make nuisance.

[creature6]

you have problem to understand as i suspected.
i never mentioned leaving the forum at all.i said i was going to ignore that thread and leave it to whoever .
i won't bother to explain myself any longer.
blah blah blah......
say it to someone who care!

[Delkaetre]

I said nothing about leaving the forum. But you said you were leaving the thread. Your reading comprehension may need a little practice. If you really are leaving the thread and ignoring it, why are you even replying? What draws you so much that you have to come back just to tell us that you're leaving and ignoring the thread?

[creature6]

is there an us involved.how many of you can you hold within yourself ?
there http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/.../...n_an_argument/
that's for you doll.
you need to practise to get better .
Right now you are not doing to good.
i will leave when i'm pleased to.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Delkaetre

I said nothing about leaving the forum. But you said you were leaving the thread. Your reading comprehension may need a little practice. If you really are leaving the thread and ignoring it, why are you even replying? What draws you so much that you have to come back just to tell us that you're leaving and ignoring the thread?

It's a, how do you say...childish compulsion to always get the last word.

[creature6]

my last word to you doll.
http://www.forevergeek.com/2005/.../...n_an_argument/
i could have sent you the same message as i did send to Delkaetre.
are you somehow related?

[viscus]

38 ways to win an argument with a logical fallacy, how adorable. Did you find that in an indignant Google search after I called you out for not having anything to back up your idiotic opinion?

[Alan]

XJIN, I'm not going to be condescending or even mean to you on this post, but for that reason I ask for you to read all of it.
You're plain wrong in here. I'm not going to call you stupid or anything, but you're factually wrong. As a Marxist, allow me to correct you, first through your assertions about Obama's international opinions:

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

First being the whole situation with Honduras... Why is Obama giving support to a communist act?

Zelaya is a socialist, not a communist. He was democratically elected, but the military exiled him for simply asking for the people's opinion on whether they would accept two presidency terms, and instated its own authoritarian regime. The people protested this, as Zelaya's popularity has only increased through time, and of course skyrocketed after this complete abuse of power from the military.

Why is our goverment working with Hugo Chavez who is a tyrant and communist?

They aren't. As GM said, Obama just agrees with some things Hugo Chavez happens to agree with, like the right for all humans to have a basic dignity and acceptable living standards.
Besides, Chavez isn't a tyrant. He is not trying to prolong his time in office, and his Bolivarian policies have increased the standard of living in Venezuela. At most, he's an asshole on camera, but most Venezuelans like Chavez's policies.

Also he's so upset that the jews are building houses in Israel...yet he's completely okay with the fact of muslims building nuclear bombs in Iran.

I have to ask you to point to me to a place that backs your first assertion, because it makes me happy. If Obama is 'upset that the jews are building houses in Israel' then you probably are referring to the recent attempt at grabbin even more Palestinian lands, displacing all the people in the process of course, for the sake of building Israeli suburbs.
As for Iran, hasn't Iran mentioned too long that they're looking for nuclear power, not nuclear weapons?

And why did he feel that Russia's iilegal act of invading Georgia had more moral equivalent then Georgia defending themselves?

Because Georgia wasn't defending themselves!
Here's a post I made during that war https://www.gothic.net/boards/showth...tia#post421765
You might be interested in that thread overall.
The fight broke out due to Georgia's refusal to allow South Ossetians to have national sovereignty. South Ossetians have claimed to be underrepresented and repressed by the Georgian government, and in a regional referendum over ninety percent of the people wanted to secede from Georgia.
Georgia attacked. More than half of South Ossetians have Russian nationality, so Russia claimed the right to defend its people.
All the war was fought in South Ossetian soil; to my knowledge there was one airstrike at Georgia. Most of the deaths were South Ossetian innocents, and more than half the population of South Ossetia looked for refuge, and Russia was the only country to accept them, not Georgia.

What get's me though isn't the fact that Obama wants to side with these tyrants, but the fact that the media and congress are all standing by it without any protest whatsoever.

Please, do mention some actual tyrants, like Kim Jong Il.





So that comes back to the real question, how does any of this make him a Marxist?
You do know what a Marxist is, right?
It's even justifiable to call him a "socialist"
Socialism is just a trend; a matter of degrees. A government with universal healthcare is more socialist than one without it.
But Marxism is a very specific political theory, one that encompasses historical materialism as the way to define human history, a critique of capitalism that makes it an inevitable but doomed phase in history following feudalism, an atheist humanism that replaces religious control, and the dictatorship of the proletariat which guides the revolution and eventually dissolves the state.

Obama has none of these traits.

[vindicatedxjin]

Originally Posted by Alan

XJIN, I'm not going to be condescending or even mean to you on this post, but for that reason I ask for you to read all of it.
You're plain wrong in here. I'm not going to call you stupid or anything, but you're factually wrong. As a Marxist, allow me to correct you, first through your assertions about Obama's international opinions:


Zelaya is a socialist, not a communist. He was democratically elected, but the military exiled him for simply asking for the people's opinion on whether they would accept two presidency terms, and instated its own authoritarian regime. The people protested this, as Zelaya's popularity has only increased through time, and of course skyrocketed after this complete abuse of power from the military.

They aren't. As GM said, Obama just agrees with some things Hugo Chavez happens to agree with, like the right for all humans to have a basic dignity and acceptable living standards.
Besides, Chavez isn't a tyrant. He is not trying to prolong his time in office, and his Bolivarian policies have increased the standard of living in Venezuela. At most, he's an asshole on camera, but most Venezuelans like Chavez's policies.

I have to ask you to point to me to a place that backs your first assertion, because it makes me happy. If Obama is 'upset that the jews are building houses in Israel' then you probably are referring to the recent attempt at grabbin even more Palestinian lands, displacing all the people in the process of course, for the sake of building Israeli suburbs.
As for Iran, hasn't Iran mentioned too long that they're looking for nuclear power, not nuclear weapons?


Because Georgia wasn't defending themselves!
Here's a post I made during that war https://www.gothic.net/boards/showth...tia#post421765
You might be interested in that thread overall.
The fight broke out due to Georgia's refusal to allow South Ossetians to have national sovereignty. South Ossetians have claimed to be underrepresented and repressed by the Georgian government, and in a regional referendum over ninety percent of the people wanted to secede from Georgia.
Georgia attacked. More than half of South Ossetians have Russian nationality, so Russia claimed the right to defend its people.
All the war was fought in South Ossetian soil; to my knowledge there was one airstrike at Georgia. Most of the deaths were South Ossetian innocents, and more than half the population of South Ossetia looked for refuge, and Russia was the only country to accept them, not Georgia.

Please, do mention some actual tyrants, like Kim Jong Il.





So that comes back to the real question, how does any of this make him a Marxist?
You do know what a Marxist is, right?
It's even justifiable to call him a "socialist"
Socialism is just a trend; a matter of degrees. A government with universal healthcare is more socialist than one without it.
But Marxism is a very specific political theory, one that encompasses historical materialism as the way to define human history, a critique of capitalism that makes it an inevitable but doomed phase in history following feudalism, an atheist humanism that replaces religious control, and the dictatorship of the proletariat which guides the revolution and eventually dissolves the state.

Obama has none of these traits.

Alan, I truly do appreciate that you actually gave me a RELIABLE response to what I wrote unlike all the other twits. Like I said I'm not all that wise in the area of politics. But from what I "have" seen. It just seemed like Obama has Marxist traits. You yourself said that he happens to agree with many characteristics of Hugo Chavez...is that a bad thing? probably not. I said twice that I didn't think that Obama WAS a marxist though. Anyhow...I learned alot from what you said. Thank you.

[JCC]

You're fat.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by vindicatedxjin

I said twice that I didn't think that Obama WAS a marxist though.

You said he seemed "more like a marxist than anything else"-- anything else presumably entailing things like 'liberal democrat'-- which is essentially equivalent.

[creature6]

Originally Posted by viscus

38 ways to win an argument with a logical fallacy, how adorable. Did you find that in an indignant Google search after I called you out for not having anything to back up your idiotic opinion?

why don't you go and try to boil yourself an egg.
while you are at it ,may you make me one,please?
I like them soft.thank you.