Debates
11 Feb 07
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by SeitseI think you'll find that you did advocate the nuking of Iran:
Look who's talking... the self proclaimed 'Commie', member of a socialist party, and supporter of 'freedom fighters' who kill innocent people.
[b]Touché! 😵
And no, my dear PinkMikey, I've never advocated the nuking of Iran.
So, want me to keep mopping the floor with you, old chap? 😉[/b]
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=59997&page=4
We've seen you're idea of 'mopping the floor' with people before - ignore the facts and just rant. Then announce that you've somehow made a point. Convinces nobody.
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeTedious and predictable.
I think you'll find that you did advocate the nuking of Iran:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=59997&page=4
We've seen you're idea of 'mopping the floor' with people before - ignore the facts and just rant. Then announce that you've somehow made a point. Convinces nobody.
The old man prefers to dodge to a straight accusation of embracing obsolete ideas, by refering to the other persons' arguments.
So, what's the problem Mikey? Yeah, let's mop the floor with any enemy of the State of Israel... so what?
Now let's go back to the point: Are you or are you nor a commie? Do you advocate the Marxist ideas yes or no?
(Later on we speak about why are you lonely and bitter so close from from the pinebox, at your age)
So, I'm waiting.
11 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseShock horror! Redmike addresses the other person's arguement!
Tedious and predictable.
The old man prefers to dodge to a straight accusation of embracing obsolete ideas, by refering to the other persons' arguments.
So, what's the problem Mikey? Yeah, let's mop the floor with any enemy of the State of Israel... so what?
Now let's go back to the point: Are you or are you nor a commie? Do you advocate the Marxist ...[text shortened]... are you lonely and bitter so close from from the pinebox, at your age)
So, I'm waiting.
You might be surprised to find that this is the idea of 'debate'.
You said you hadn't advocated the nuking or Iran. I address this point by showing you where you said it.
Get the idea?
As to your 'accusations', it is hardly a secret that I'm a member of a socialist party and advocate Marxist ideas. What that has to do with your original point about 'supressing freedom' I don't know.
I guess that just demonstrates your ignorance of Marxism as well.
But then, a supporter of Mussolini like yourself would know all about suppressing freedom.
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeSearch for attacks on the person instead of attack on the persons' arguments. THAT is debate.
Shock horror! Redmike addresses the other person's arguement!
You might be surprised to find that this is the idea of 'debate'.
You said you hadn't advocated the nuking or Iran. I address this point by showing you where you said it.
Get the idea?
As to your 'accusations', it is hardly a secret that I'm a member of a socialist party and advocat ...[text shortened]... then, a supporter of Mussolini like yourself would know all about suppressing freedom.
I have nothing to be ashamed of, Mikey boy: If a country calls for the destruction of Israel and gathers nukes, I support an attack on that country.
Now, ignorance on Marxism, Mikey boy, is thinking it will work when history has proven it does NOT work... instead, it when in practice, it evolves into supression of freedom.
You are ignorant if you don't know that. Read history, old chap.
The pathetic part is that you still believe in it, although it has proven to be a failed ideology.
That's when I understand your bitterness... I would be bitter too, if at the end of my life I see that everything I believed in proved to be a failure.
11 Feb 07
Hint: Perhaps if you leave your island, cash your welfare check, and visit the former Soviet empire (I lived there for more than a year) you will see what the dictatorship of the proletariat does on people.
Until you see the horror of it, you have nothing but dusty books that you repeat as a parrot.
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by SeitseAttacking the person might be your idea of debate (it clearly is), but my idea of debate is to attack a person's ideas and statement - especially when they're obviously false, as yours often are.
Search for attacks on the person instead of attack on the persons' arguments. THAT is debate.
I have nothing to be ashamed of, Mikey boy: If a country calls for the destruction of Israel and gathers nukes, I support an attack on that country.
Now, ignorance on Marxism, Mikey boy, is thinking it will work when history has proven it does NOT work... inste ...[text shortened]... ter too, if at the end of my life I see that everything I believed in proved to be a failure.
I understand that you think you've nothing to be ashamed of in your statement on nuking Iran. I seek only to highlight the hypocrisy in your claim that you didn't say so. You can squirm all you want, but your lie is clear to see.
The rest of your post is just your usual personal attacks. For the sake of your continued use of the forum, there's no point me addressing these.
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by RedmikeLMAO... look who's the first one who called me a Duce AND, even I DID NOT addressed to you but to iraqi insurgent, you replied me and attacked me 😉
Attacking the person might be your idea of debate (it clearly is), but my idea of debate is to attack a person's ideas and statement - especially when they're obviously false, as yours often are.
I understand that you think you've nothing to be ashamed of in your statement on nuking Iran. I seek only to highlight the hypocrisy in your claim that you didn' ...[text shortened]... cks. For the sake of your continued use of the forum, there's no point me addressing these.
Hypocrite you are, Mikey. Check the thread and see you are the one who jumped on me, not the other way.
ZING!
hahaha
Enjoy the short path to the pinebox, old chap 😉
11 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseYour initial post wasn't replying to anyone's, though it was immediately after mine.
LMAO... look who's the first one who called me a Duce AND, even I DID NOT addressed to you but to iraqi insurgent, you replied me and attacked me 😉
Hypocrite you are, Mikey. Check the thread and see you are the one who jumped on me, not the other way.
[b]ZING!
hahaha
Enjoy the short path to the pinebox, old chap 😉[/b]
I think you'll also find that you referred to me as 'comrade' before I used the term 'Duce'.
In any case, the sequence of the posts is less relevant here than their content. I attacked your stated ideas. You, as usual, went straight to the personal attacks.
But otherwise, a better than usual attempt to evade the point.
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by Redmikenope, nope, nope, old chap... it is important, because I don't lose my time anymore replying your posts nor debating with a bitter person like you... so, accept that I did NOT address you, but YOU address me when I was speaking about another poster, not you.
Your initial post wasn't replying to anyone's, though it was immediately after mine.
I think you'll also find that you referred to me as 'comrade' before I used the term 'Duce'.
In any case, the sequence of the posts is less relevant here than their content. I attacked your stated ideas. You, as usual, went straight to the personal attacks.
But otherwise, a better than usual attempt to evade the point.
Anyone can see it when seeing page 1 of this thread.
So, my point is made... YOU started with no point and no debate, but a direct reply to my post, attacking me.
Point made.
I rest my case.
You are the hypocrite.
And obsessed with me.
TOUCHÉ!
Lmao!
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by SeitseDude...
nope, nope, nope, old chap... it is important, because I don't lose my time anymore replying your posts nor debating with a bitter person like you... so, accept that I did NOT address you, but YOU address me when I was speaking about another poster, not you.
Anyone can see it when seeing page 1 of this thread.
So, my point is made... YOU started with no ...[text shortened]...
I rest my case.
You are the hypocrite.
And obsessed with me.
[b]TOUCHÉ!
Lmao![/b]
Either learn how to debate properly or crawl back to the General forum.
Really, you're being nothing but obnoxious.
Touche...
Good lord...
11 Feb 07
Seitse,
Why do you even bother, Red Mike just absolutely destroyed your rant by having the intelligence to review your previous posts on this forum and annialated your position.
Apart from demonstrating that not only are you intellectually challanged but that you are also the proud holder of a selective memory or an unashamed dirty little liar.
Personally I couldn't have waded through any of your posts as he stench of human waste that comes with them would turn anyones stomach.
11 Feb 07
I reckon the US is starting smear Iran already. The fact that Iranian weaponary is being used in the Iraqi civil war should surprise no one, instead of looking at the origins of bombs it should be looking into why the bombs are going off. Is it too obvious to say engaging with Iran would solve more than blaming Iran.
I'm not sure Bush wants stability in the region.
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by shavixmirAccording to you, dude, and your cranium cavity has the same as PinkMike's... air.
Dude...
Either learn how to debate properly or crawl back to the General forum.
Really, you're being nothing but obnoxious.
Touche...
Good lord...
Live of your memories and mate with Mikey. It's the best you can do... support each other.
Live with it.
12 Feb 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeThe article is horrible, but even a moron can see what he is seeing.
Is Pilger being insightful or paranoid about a US invasion by the Spring?
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-02/03pilger.cfm
For example, he gives the followibng as a reason for not attacking Iran:
"Iran has a natural affinity with the Shia majority of Iraq, and has been implacably opposed to al-Qaeda,"
That arguement is a joke. Shia and Sunni extremists tend to not get along. So what? Would be a fine arguement if al-Qaeda was the only terrorist organization in the world.
I don't know what the rules are like in his world, but in my world, when
a foreign nation sends people, knowledge and weapons to kill people from your nation, your nation is de facto cleared hot.
An invasion by spring is not in the works. There would be more forces in the region. Airstrikes are more likely, which is fine with me. I'm not a big fan af nation builiding.