LesnarLunatic v. DrTom

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

Figuring that the Current News forum isn't a "Political Forum" by any means. I have decided to respond to some of the charges against me on the NHB board.

 

["It's good to see I'm not the only one getting tired of these threads."]

 

Because that gives you justifaction to close them.

 

["Lesnar: this forum is called "Current Events." It is NOT called "Party Line Political Bullshit.""]

 

I feel that if I posted some Newsmax articles and say a FreeRepublic dealie calling all Liberals the spawn of Satan, you wouldn't have been so quick to 'save the day' and close the threads.

 

["I hope I don't need to explain the difference to you, because I'm not going to."]

 

I hope the defination isn't as flexible as 'Enemy Combatant', in the sense of "It's party line political BS" when I disagree with it.

 

["You're flame-baiting"]

 

Coming from a man who suggested a mass genocide of all the Arabs to prevent more terrorist attacks (in this context): "Well, if they're all dead, they can't exactly attack us again." and then coming back to criticism with

"Pretty much, yeah. If you have another viable solution that would prevent future terrorist attacks on America from the Islamic world, I'd really like to hear it." and "I'm not saying we should obliterate the Middle East tomorrow. But if there is another significant terrorist attack against us, then we should consider all available options to prevent that from happening again, which includes turning the offending countries into radioactive glass.", I'm flattered that you think I'm flamebaiting. Maybe I should just believe you and call for the mass extermination of Muslims, heck Tommy, you can make a profit by building the gas chambers.

 

["and this is the only warning I'll be giving you to stop."]

 

maybe having such outspoken right-wingers as moderators for a News forum wasn't the best idea. Eh?

 

["Thread closed."]

 

Perhaps a Political forum would do the job here. But, I figure it'll never happen.

 

It's best that I lay back and think about how to kill all the Muslims if they fart wrong in one of our towns. Maybe I can read the Ann Coulter book telling me all the liberals are skinny braindead who overreact and have no original ideas. Ann also suggested killing alot of Muslims and converting the rest to Christianity after 9/11.

 

Bleh!

[Guest Anglesault]

I hate liberals.

 

That is all.

[Guest Incandenza]

I hate liberals.

 

That is all.

 

 

I hope this isn't what passes for thrilling political talk around here.

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

Actually... in some regards, I'm not totally liberal. I feel marijuana should be decriminalized, I feel that if taxes have to be cut then Republican congress should also cut spending for a few areas (just to balance that all), I'm against Partial-Birth Abortion and so on.

 

I just don't like Bush and friends either.

[Guest Incandenza]

I'm trying to avoid a political argument, but I don't think anyone is for partial birth abortion itself. The problem with the legislation preventing it is that it always leaves too much room for the criminalization of all forms of abortion down the road, and that I cannot put up with.

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

yeah... some subjects have the view of "I'm not for it, but i'm against banning it". Which pisses off less people if you think about it.

[Guest GenerationNever]

Wow, Dr. Tom vs. LesnarLunatic, I love babyface vs. babyface feuds.

[Guest Incandenza]

Was Dr. Tom's comments on preventing terrorism taken out of context? One can say that an effective way of ending terrorism is to blow up the country/countries where there terrorists live--an idea I abhor, but that's neither here nor there--without actually going the Ann Coulter route and suggesting something as heinous as killing all the Arabs. If Dr. Tom really suggested the latter, then isn't calling for the genocide of an entire race of human beings grounds for forum banishment?

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

Wow, Dr. Tom vs. LesnarLunatic, I love babyface vs. babyface feuds.

I'm a babyface?

 

as for Tom's comments. He suggested nuking alot of Arabs in retaliation for another attack. Or killing them to prevent another attack. Maybe both

[Guest Anglesault]

One can say that an effective way of ending terrorism is to blow up the country/countries where there terrorists live--an idea I abhor, but that's neither here nor there--without actually going the Ann Coulter route and suggesting something as heinous as killing all the Arabs. If Dr. Tom really suggested the latter, then isn't calling for the genocide of an entire race of human beings grounds for forum banishment?

While that is a bit extreme, I honestly can't think of anyhting we can do that would end terrorism without breaking a few eggs (Not whiping out a race, just doing what is needed) You do agree that we need to do our best to try and eradicate terrorism, right? Do you have any suggestions on what we should do?

[Guest razazteca]

one solution would be to do a complete withdrawl and association from the region of conflict, manly Islrael.

 

but where would we get our oil from?

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

one solution would be to do a complete withdrawl and association from the region of conflict, manly Islrael.

 

but where would we get our oil from?

Russia?

[Guest Anglesault]

So leave Israel completely open to cowardly Palestinian bombers with no one backing them up? How on earth will THAT help anything?

[Guest razazteca]

well the reason why USA is getting terrorist attacks is for backing up Israel, right? That and being spreading Capitolist American culture around the world?

 

Why must USA be the police of the world?

[Guest Singular]

"I feel marijuana should be decriminalized"

 

You got my vote.

[Guest Incandenza]

There is no one solution. Bombing Afghanistan didn't work. The best that we can do--and this is faulty as well--is continue to root out all terrorist cells.

 

This was something that cheesed me off in the events following 9/11: You had countless people beat their chests and wave their flags about how we need to turn another country "into a parking lot" for what they did to us, but what good would it have done? This was never about one country, as we now know all too well.

 

And now, several months later, what good has it done? The threat of another terrorist attack still lingers, and no amount of bomb dropping is going to change that. Instead, it just makes people feel better about themselves, only for a little while.

 

Feh, I've said all I wanted to say.

[Guest RetroRob215]

Lesnar, politically I agree with you more than Dr. Tom. But your last thread in the Current Event's folder wasn't really a "Current Event". It was an article which stated all of the bad things about Conservatives. Don't get me wrong, I'm also against Conservatives, but that thread really belonged in this folder seeing how all it did was "flame" Conservatives.

[Guest goodhelmet]

the only problem i have with that assessment rob is that if it were something that attacked liberals, which happens frequently in the current events folder, i think it would have been left untouched.

[Guest RetroRob215]

the only problem i have with that assessment rob is that if it were something that attacked liberals, which happens frequently in the current events folder, i think it would have been left untouched.

It probably would have, but that doesn't mean that it belongs there.

[Guest genius1591]

DR TOM IS A BIG FAG. I REMEMBER HIM FROM THE OLD FORUM, HE SAID THE STUPIDEST THINGS. LESNARLUNATIC YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM HIM.

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

thanks for showing up Genius!

[Guest Pilgrim]

One of the major reasons that America, and to a lesser extent the western world as a whole are reguarded as the enemy of islam/arab world is due to its involvement(and bias) in Israel and more importantly Americas position as the leading capitalist country in the world.

 

The latest palestinian uprising has been going on for 18 months - 2 years. Why has it taken so long for Bush to realise that this is a serious problem? Earlier intervention could of spared a lot of bloodshed on both sides, and even now when you decide to get involved it's a half assed attempt. Conflicting signals about the establishment of an independant palestinian state and then calling for the resignation of Arafat, all the while there is an extreme right wing leader in Israel calling for war.

 

Only America can mediate and enfore any kind of decision. Proof of this can be seen in the recent flare up between India and Pakistan. The British tried to intervene but we no longer have the influence we once did, only when the US got involved did calmer heads prevail.

 

I know this is a mish-mash of points but all i am saying is that if you sort out Israel (and drop any plans for an invasion of Iraq for the time being) then maybe the world wouldn't see you as a group of trigger happy cowboys ready to send the world spiraling into world war 3 in your crusade against the axis of evil.

 

Or we could blame everthing on HHH and Steph

[Guest DrTom]

<sigh> You're persistent, Lesnar, I'll give you that. That's not a compliment, btw.

 

"Because that gives you justifaction to close them."

 

When other people are saying they're sick of the things you've been posting, then it gives me a perfectly valid reason to close them. All you did was post several things, all of which can be summed up as: "Variations on a Theme: Conservatives Suck." That's not current events. That's you painting your agenda everywhere and inviting an argument. Idiots with chips on their shoulders don't impress me, kid, especially when they have to make their "arguments" using someone else's words.

 

"I feel that if I posted some Newsmax articles and say a FreeRepublic dealie calling all Liberals the spawn of Satan, you wouldn't have been so quick to 'save the day' and close the threads."

 

Well, since no one has done that, it's impossible to say, but I wouldn't want to see that there, either. If you're going to post a news article, post a news article. But posting op/ed columns blasting one side of the political spectrum doesn't contribute in any way to a discussion of current events. If I want to read party-line screed from either side, I know where to go. No one should have to see it in the current events forum.

 

"I hope the defination isn't as flexible as 'Enemy Combatant', in the sense of "It's party line political BS" when I disagree with it."

 

I think you know what party-line political bullshit means. As much of it as you've posted, you're pretty fricking hopeless if you don't. Whether or not I agree with it is unimportant.

 

"Coming from a man who suggested a mass genocide of all the Arabs to prevent more terrorist attacks (in this context): "Well, if they're all dead, they can't exactly attack us again." and then coming back to criticism with

"Pretty much, yeah. If you have another viable solution that would prevent future terrorist attacks on America from the Islamic world, I'd really like to hear it." and "I'm not saying we should obliterate the Middle East tomorrow. But if there is another significant terrorist attack against us, then we should consider all available options to prevent that from happening again, which includes turning the offending countries into radioactive glass.", I'm flattered that you think I'm flamebaiting. Maybe I should just believe you and call for the mass extermination of Muslims, heck Tommy, you can make a profit by building the gas chambers."

 

You're a child. And more than that, you're a stupid child. How in the blue hell does my accusation of flame-baiting (which I was not the only one to make, as you conveniently didn't mention) have anything at all to do with my proposed solution to the middle eastern problem? Please find where I specifically, by name, called for genocide. Let me spell it out for you. I'll use small words and short sentences, just in case you haven't passed the fourth-grade reading test yet. It is very possible we will be attacked again. That attack could be very large. That attack could very well be biological or nuclear. If we suffer another big attack, we need a very decisive answer. (Sorry for all the polysyllabic words… whoops, there went another one!) We need to consider all of our options. Nuclear attack is one of our options. Nuclear attack against the offending country(ies) is a very viable option. I have never called for the extermination of all Muslims, nor would I. Is that clear enough for you? I realize anyone who doesn't hug trees and buy into the Brotherhood of Man shit is an evil Nazi to liberals, but at least TRY to keep up. But since all you ever do is make crude, accusatory, and dreadfully incorrect points based on emotions, farcical leaps of logic, and ridiculous presumptions, I'm not exactly expecting a lot from you here, slugger.

 

" maybe having such outspoken right-wingers as moderators for a News forum wasn't the best idea. Eh?"

 

Add, "with a painfully short attention span and poor reading comprehension skills" to the "stupid child" diagnosis above. I've never claimed to be a conservative, and there's a very good reason for that: I'M NOT. I'm a registered Independent. I'll admit to being a fiscal conservative, but I am a philosophical and social libertarian. Just because I often disagree with the tripe you post doesn't make me a "right-winger." Nail yourself to another cross.

 

FYI: I stated my voting status and political philosophy in another thread in CE, but since it doesn't fit your cookie-cutter argument, you omitted it, and then tried to score points based on that omission. You're such a peach.

 

"It's best that I lay back and think about how to kill all the Muslims if they fart wrong in one of our towns."

 

Look kids, more crude, ridiculous generalizations, and a ridiculous attack made in place of any attempt to understand the opposing view! No, Skippy, it's best that you lie back and think about how seriously you're taking a few disagreements on a fucking internet message board. I'm a moderator, so I have something of a vested interest here. What's your excuse?

 

" Maybe I can read the Ann Coulter book telling me all the liberals are skinny braindead who overreact and have no original ideas."

 

Not all liberals are skinny. Hey, you asked for that one.

 

"Ann also suggested killing alot of Muslims and converting the rest to Christianity after 9/11."

 

Well, bully for her. As an atheist, I don't really give a shit what their religion is. I just care about innocent Americans getting killed by people with a persistent axe to grind who use violence as their primary means of communication.

 

 

You know, looking it over, I *really* didn't want to write this kind of reply, but you didn't leave me much of a choice. If you want to have a good, honest debate about some issues, I'd be all for it. But if you made this thread here to try to score points, make accusations, and generally sling a lot of mud, then I'm really not interested.

[Guest DrTom]

"Wow, Dr. Tom vs. LesnarLunatic, I love babyface vs. babyface feuds."

 

I'm a face? Wow, I didn't know that. I always had myself pegged as more of a tweener here. Maybe if I used more foreign objects and put my feet on the ropes more...

[Guest DrTom]

"I hate liberals.

 

That is all."

 

I really can't say the same. Most liberals are good and decent people at heart. I don't think their ideas work too well all the time, but I think they do act with the best interests of the majority in mind. Unfortunately, some liberals are missing much of the charm their more eloquent colleagues possess. And there are a few who ecompass and personify all the bad aspects of liberalism, while possessing none of its redeeming qualities.

 

But the same can be said for conservatives. A demagogue is a demagogue.

[Guest DrTom]

"If Dr. Tom really suggested the latter, then isn't calling for the genocide of an entire race of human beings grounds for forum banishment?"

 

I guess it would be. I didn't suggest the latter, though, despite my detractors' attempts to misrepresent my words and attribute to me things I never said.

[Guest DrTom]

"one solution would be to do a complete withdrawl and association from the region of conflict, manly Islrael.

 

but where would we get our oil from?"

 

Israel is our only real ally in that part of the world. They deserve our continued support, and they deserve more of it than we're presently giving them. I'd suggest doubling all aid to Israel and just cutting our ties with their neighbors if it came to that.

 

Russian and Alberta would love to sell us oil. We also have access to more oil than has ever come out of the Middle East, in our own reserves and in shale. It's not all immediately available, but a good bit of it is. There are also very oil-rich areas in our country we've been unable to tap into thus far because of environmental debates.

 

In short, we don't really need oil from the Middle East.

[Guest DrTom]

"well the reason why USA is getting terrorist attacks is for backing up Israel, right?"

 

It's one of the reasons. Israel's neighbors have been trying to crush them for decades, and have been beaten back every time, sometimes with American aid. There's also the fact that we "occupied" Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, which upset Usama bin Laden greatly. And the radical leaders in that part of the world have branded us "the great Satan" going back at least to Khomeni, and maybe before.

 

It's not America's job to police the world, and I really wish we'd stop doing it. I very much agree with the John Adams school of thought: Americans are the friends of liberty and democracy everywhere, but defenders only of their own.

[Guest DrTom]

"the only problem i have with that assessment rob is that if it were something that attacked liberals, which happens frequently in the current events folder, i think it would have been left untouched."

 

I don't want to see people post missives right down party lines, no matter which party it is, and no matter what school of thought it supports. Just because I disagree with liberals more often than I agree with them doesn't mean I'd be happy to see a bunch of screed from some conservative think tank pasted into a CE thread.

 

And there's a large difference between a genuine debate along party and philosophical lines, and posting someone else's words that basically amount to "This group sucks."

 

(Edit: goddamn, I've made a lot of replies here tonight. Ok, I'm thru for the night. You may all sigh in relief now, as the soapbox is being abandoned. )

[Guest LesnarLunatic]

"You're persistent, Lesnar, I'll give you that. That's not a compliment, btw."

 

If I man cannot get much for his efforts, then he takes whatever he can get. I'm sure somebody put that much better.

 

"Idiots with chips on their shoulders don't impress me, kid, especially when they have to make their "arguments" using someone else's words."

 

Uh huh... I'd say I'm not an idiot by most definations, but that's all opinion anyways, isn't it?

 

"I think you know what party-line political bullshit means. As much of it as you've posted, you're pretty fricking hopeless if you don't."

 

I know what it is, my quote was referring to how you'd define it. It doesn't matter how I define it, I'm not a moderator. Yellow Times is probably more to the left than the Democratic party.

 

"You're a child. And more than that, you're a stupid child. How in the blue hell does my accusation of flame-baiting (which I was not the only one to make, as you conveniently didn't mention) have anything at all to do with my proposed solution to the middle eastern problem?"

 

Because your solution is pretty much huge bait for people to argue and flame it. It's blatantly supporting unrestrained genocide against one group of people for what a small group of people have incited. Killing alot of people to fight terrorism isn't gonna just magically solve the problem, it'll only piss more people off and breed more terrorists who hate America.

 

"Please find where I specifically, by name, called for genocide."

 

From the 9/11 video thread

 

'To the situation as it stands now, yes. I'm not saying we should obliterate the Middle East tomorrow. But if there is another significant terrorist attack against us, then we should consider all available options to prevent that from happening again, which includes turning the offending countries into radioactive glass.'

 

I'd say it's a bit genocidal to recommend killing millions of innocent people as a pre-emptive measure. Noting of course that in your little mushroom cloud fantasy, that would breed more hatred of America. 9/11 didn't come from any specific country, but from a group. Nuking Afghanistan wouldn't have done any good.

 

But, in your 'all available options to prevent that from happening again' may even be viewed as advocating the detention of Muslims in this country. It'd prevent it from happening, wouldn't it? *smirk* Which I'd imagine would piss them off even more.

 

"It is very possible we will be attacked again. That attack could be very large. That attack could very well be biological or nuclear. If we suffer another big attack, we need a very decisive answer. (Sorry for all the polysyllabic words… whoops, there went another one!) We need to consider all of our options. Nuclear attack is one of our options. Nuclear attack against the offending country(ies) is a very viable option."

 

but of course, if it doesn't come from a country, but a group, then your plan would be held back. No rational country is gonna try and use these weapons on the US because they know that if they do that, they will be nuked out of existance. As for a nuclear attack, i'd imagine that is still overhyped. A so called dirty bomb still seems overhyped. Simply, in the setup we have now, you can't just store that much uranium without people being suspicious of you.

 

"I have never called for the extermination of all Muslims, nor would I."

 

Just the ones in the offending countries.

 

"I realize anyone who doesn't hug trees and buy into the Brotherhood of Man shit is an evil Nazi to liberals, but at least TRY to keep up"

 

I'm not sure where people could think you're overdoing it Tom. Possibly the parts where you say you'd nuke countries to (in your point of view) prevent terrorism.

 

"But since all you ever do is make crude, accusatory, and dreadfully incorrect points based on emotions, farcical leaps of logic, and ridiculous presumptions, I'm not exactly expecting a lot from you here, slugger."

 

and I should note for all those reading at home, Tom criticized me for accusatory points based on emotions after he said I have the reading skill of a 9 year old. And no, the rock throwing did not bring down the glass house quite yet.

 

"Add, "with a painfully short attention span and poor reading comprehension skills" to the "stupid child" diagnosis above. I've never claimed to be a conservative, and there's a very good reason for that: I'M NOT. "

 

You're not a conservative, just a guy who sympathizes with them on alot of issues. Or, in your words "I'm not and my reason is because i'm not"

 

"I'm a registered Independent. I'll admit to being a fiscal conservative, but I am a philosophical and social libertarian."

 

Ahh yes... so maybe we can agree on some stuff, just not stuff involving the liquidation of millions. At least we can agree that people should be able to smoke marijuana. Well, I hope we can.

 

"Just because I often disagree with the tripe you post doesn't make me a "right-winger.""

 

Yes true, you're a right-winger because of your Barry Goldwater-esque ideas of nuking the middle east. Not because you disagree with me.

 

"I stated my voting status and political philosophy in another thread in CE, but since it doesn't fit your cookie-cutter argument, you omitted it, and then tried to score points based on that omission."

 

and when was this post made? keep in mind that I don't read every thread on CE. Nor do I have psychic abilities.

 

"You're such a peach"

 

well, isn't that the pits?

 

"Look kids, more crude, ridiculous generalizations"

 

"I'll use small words and short sentences, just in case you haven't passed the fourth-grade reading test yet"- Dr Tom

 

Lookie kids! that glass house has a hole in it, but it hasn't shattered yet!

 

"Not all liberals are skinny. Hey, you asked for that one."

 

Lousy Ted Kennedy, without him the Liberals would be the birkenstock supergroup! [/sarcasm]

 

"If you want to have a good, honest debate about some issues, I'd be all for it."

 

That'll eventually happen. But, I'm not in the game of promises or predictions. Maybe if the right topic pops up.

 

"But if you made this thread here to try to score points, make accusations, and generally sling a lot of mud, then I'm really not interested."

 

I made it to respond to the post you made in the CE forum, I also had the sensibility to take it to this forum. I didn't make this thread to start a rally of "Dr. Tom sucks!" or nothing. I figure with the people on this forum, most don't hold an opinion on this sort of thing.

 

"I'm a face? Wow, I didn't know that. I always had myself pegged as more of a tweener here. Maybe if I used more foreign objects and put my feet on the ropes more"

 

and our feud is the first one where both guys want to be the bad guy but the fans are popping for it like Test is wrestling Brock.

 

"It's not America's job to police the world, and I really wish we'd stop doing it. "

 

Same here. Doing all that has served to tick off more people. I can't see the US easing out of that role without difficulty.

 

as for Usama and how this started. I recall reading that Usama offered a defense plan for Saudi Arabia from Iraq, but the Saudis turned it down so the US could come in. Meaning all this started as anger over personal interests, which Usama then cloaked in religion to gain more followers.

 

"I've made a lot of replies here tonight. Ok, I'm thru for the night. You may all sigh in relief now, as the soapbox is being abandoned."

 

At first, I wondered how my thread went from 21 replies to 28 replies so quickly. But, I figured out pretty quickly why.

 

*sighs a bit*

 

*gets soapbox, puts soap in it*

 

okay, i'm done for tonight.