I would if you would kindly direct me to the first post in which you were “Attacked.” Yes I know you have never said that, and that is exactly what I mean by nitpicking. If you would quite trying to undermine everyone by insulting their intelligence maybe they would do the same. The thing you fail to realize by these shouts of hate towards bush with small fractions of easily distorted facts is that different people have different opinions. If you would respect those opinions by at least being civilized you would be more well liked around here as their are several users who are respected and have the same opinions as you. Respecting ones opinion will allow your opinion to be respected. The person who said “You’re stupid” probably has seperate opinions (obviously) and isn’t into respecting others opinions. The problem is that the disposition of most favors his opinion and so he would not be as heavily scolded. However it may have also been due to the way you presented your opinions and questions, in which case he was justified. In short, respect, be patient, and you will be respected.

The very first question was based on a false premise.  There’s no logic in answering it.  The rest went downhill from there.

Sethery - 06 March 2006 02:43 AM

The very first question was based on a false premise.  There’s no logic in answering it.  The rest went downhill from there.

Okay then, whatever you want to believe.

CM - 05 March 2006 08:08 AM

Possibly the “carpet bombing” reference might be about Fallajah. Just a guess.
If so, perhaps “extensive bombing” would be more accurate (although as reporters were prohibited for several months it’s a little difficult to be sure either way - there were reports that 65 percent of buildings were leveled to the ground, reports of extensive use of cluster bombs etc).
Some people have said that the attack on Bahgdad was precise and effective, whereas the attack on Falluja seemed more like a “carpet bombing”. Not sure it that is evidence to prove that it was on the Kissinger “back into the Stone Age” scale though.

CM:  Is that you in that picture beside your name?

Michael Douglas - 05 March 2006 05:02 PM

Now hold on a second here.  You know bloody well that I’ve tried to get answers to questions here and they have not been answered.  You also must know that it’s other people on this site who resort to picking out your spelling or grammar errors. 

“OMG half off teh countyr iss stupids can u tell meh y?” - I’ve never said this.

About insulting intelligence: eh, I’m the one who was attacked first by the way.  Certain people here, instead of looking at the issue at hand, started to say “you’re stupid”

And when did I ever call anyone stupid?

But are you going to reply to their post and moan at them?  Of course not!  That would be fair!

You can’t honestly be serious! Not only have you not tried to get answers (why would you? Apparently you know all the answers) but you’ve consistently refused to answer anything that has been posted to you. Ever since you first signed up here you’ve attacked and insulted, and avoided debate at any opportunity.

As to your question (how can that many people be so dumb?), at what point did you think that was a valid question?

Well, as for your first ‘question’ - you’re asking people to comment on the headline in the Daily Mail. Could you please post a picture of this headline, since the one you posted appears to be from the Daily Mirror.

As a response to the one from the Daily Mirror....a little background. The Mirror is a traditionally left-of-centre tabloid, that tend to be big on bluster and celebrity ‘news’ but low on actual content. It is not a particularly reputable news source. Other papers in Britain (regardless of affiliation) were able to express negative views on Bush’s re-election without having to resort to insulting Americans.

I was also under the impression that most Americans knew that Britons weren’t massively keen on Bush. The ones on this forum certainly are aware of that. As a British socialist who regularly posts here, I can vouch for everyone on this board that they’re fully aware that Britain isn’t the Bush-worshipping (feel free to insert ‘Bevis and Butthead’ comment) nation that you seem to think they seem to think it is. If you see what I mean.

Secondly, in terms of ‘supporting the troops’ - I think it’s pretty obvious that supporting the troops isn’t unconditional. I personally support out troops right up to the point they start doing things that shame my country. I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq for the reasons we were given but now we’re there, I’m determined to make it work. That means I don’t go round labelling all our troops as babykillers or terrorists or whatever - unless they actually do those things. I support the British mission in Iraq as long as the endgame is to enable Iraq to police itself adequately. For the record, I don’t support torture or ‘abuse’ of prisoners either. Partly on the grounds that some of those prisoners have yet to be proved guilty, but mostly because it’s simply counterproductive and it’s not what our values are about.

DeusXM - 06 March 2006 08:09 AM

Well, as for your first ‘question’ - you’re asking people to comment on the headline in the Daily Mail. Could you please post a picture of this headline, since the one you posted appears to be from the Daily Mirror.

As a response to the one from the Daily Mirror....a little background. The Mirror is a traditionally left-of-centre tabloid, that tend to be big on bluster and celebrity ‘news’ but low on actual content. It is not a particularly reputable news source. Other papers in Britain (regardless of affiliation) were able to express negative views on Bush’s re-election without having to resort to insulting Americans.

I was also under the impression that most Americans knew that Britons weren’t massively keen on Bush. The ones on this forum certainly are aware of that. As a British socialist who regularly posts here, I can vouch for everyone on this board that they’re fully aware that Britain isn’t the Bush-worshipping (feel free to insert ‘Bevis and Butthead’ comment) nation that you seem to think they seem to think it is. If you see what I mean.

Secondly, in terms of ‘supporting the troops’ - I think it’s pretty obvious that supporting the troops isn’t unconditional. I personally support out troops right up to the point they start doing things that shame my country. I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq for the reasons we were given but now we’re there, I’m determined to make it work. That means I don’t go round labelling all our troops as babykillers or terrorists or whatever - unless they actually do those things. I support the British mission in Iraq as long as the endgame is to enable Iraq to police itself adequately. For the record, I don’t support torture or ‘abuse’ of prisoners either. Partly on the grounds that some of those prisoners have yet to be proved guilty, but mostly because it’s simply counterproductive and it’s not what our values are about.

You’re missing the point.  A poster here said ALL the French people are scumbags.  ALL of them.  For not invading Iraq with America and Britain.  I then posted this newspaper front page because it is an English newspaper and England are with America in the oil effort.  I asked “Since this is an English newspaper, does that mean ALL English people are scum?” or something like that.

So because the French government didn’t support America in their imperialistic conquest of Middle Eastern countries and this certain poster (who’s name I forget), said that all French are this or that—wouldn’t it be fair then to say that ALL Brits are scum too since “they” printed this newspaper front page?  You can’t tarnish every person in one country with the same brush just because of the actions of a number of people (be it the government or just the media).  The empty heads that post here are unbelievable.  And you tell me I don’t want to debate?

AND CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN I DIDN’T ANSWER A QUESTION YOU ASKED ME????

Michael Douglas - 06 March 2006 02:52 AM

Sethery - 06 March 2006 02:43 AM

The very first question was based on a false premise.  There’s no logic in answering it.  The rest went downhill from there.

Okay then, whatever you want to believe.

Have you stopped molesting children?

When you answer that, you will understand what I mean.

Michael Douglas - 06 March 2006 02:53 AM

CM - 05 March 2006 08:08 AM

Possibly the “carpet bombing” reference might be about Fallajah. Just a guess.
If so, perhaps “extensive bombing” would be more accurate (although as reporters were prohibited for several months it’s a little difficult to be sure either way - there were reports that 65 percent of buildings were leveled to the ground, reports of extensive use of cluster bombs etc).
Some people have said that the attack on Bahgdad was precise and effective, whereas the attack on Falluja seemed more like a “carpet bombing”. Not sure it that is evidence to prove that it was on the Kissinger “back into the Stone Age” scale though.

CM:  Is that you in that picture beside your name?

No, it’s Josh Rouse.

Michael Douglas - 06 March 2006 09:24 AM

You’re missing the point.  A poster here said ALL the French people are scumbags.  ALL of them.  For not invading Iraq with America and Britain.  I then posted this newspaper front page because it is an English newspaper and England are with America in the oil effort.  I asked “Since this is an English newspaper, does that mean ALL English people are scum?” or something like that.

So because the French government didn’t support America in their imperialistic conquest of Middle Eastern countries and this certain poster (who’s name I forget),

Whose name you forget?!?!  You spend this much time on this site in five days, and you don’t even bother to look up the one poster you would target, so instead you “scattergun” (good word, CM) all of us???  And then you say this:

said that all French are this or that—wouldn’t it be fair then to say that ALL Brits are scum too since “they” printed this newspaper front page?  You can’t tarnish every person in one country with the same brush just because of the actions of a number of people (be it the government or just the media).  The empty heads that post here are unbelievable.  And you tell me I don’t want to debate?

But you “tarnish” (heh) every person on this site with one brush because of one poster?  Even the people who are generally more sympathetic with your beliefs, if not your approach???  And then you accuse us of hypocrisy?  Are you trying to be funny?

A poster here said ALL the French people are scumbags.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that it was Cigarskunk. The man has a pathalogical hatred of the French and indeed anything that differs from him. He isn’t representative of most people on this board. Incidentally you will note that the rules suggest blanket statements aren’t a smart way to argue.

By interpreting one person’s actions as indicative of the whole group, you’ve actually indicted yourself.

There is plenty of scope for debate here. As the most left-wing person on this forum, something like 90% of my posts consist of me defending my point of view or criticising someone else’s. I expect I rub a lot of people up the wrong way because I bring an unwelcome dose of arrogance and sarcasm into my debate. What I don’t do is throw around fashionable buzzwords or act like I’ve had some special revalation and realised I’m the only one who’s got it right and that everyone else lives in fantasyland and just ignores things. I was also going to say I don’t call other posters ‘stupid’ but I think I’d be on shakier ground with that one.

I’m by no means a model poster but I get the impression I’m tolerated here because even if other people think I’m wrong, they can usually see a rational progression from evidence of why I hold ‘incorrect’ views.

Bleating that ‘Bush is imperialist’ or ‘you’re all gun-toting nutjobs’ or ‘you’re all in denial’ or ‘I weep for America’ won’t get you anywhere because oddly enough, they’ve been used by roughly 3 billion other drive-by posters and don’t actually mean anything. Trust me, I used some myself when I was 17, for all the fat lot of good it did my case.

If you’ve got something to bring to the table relating to a specific event, and you have evidence for your point (which is referenced) which doesn’t equate to broad, blanket statements or arguments from emotion, then please do share it. That’s a generally good rule for everyone, regardless of affiliation.