Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > POLICE FIRE RUBBER BULLETS AT PROTESTERS
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: POLICE FIRE RUBBER BULLETS AT PROTESTERS Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Apr 14th, 2003 01:11 PM
Protoclown I would shoot you with a rubber bullet.
Apr 14th, 2003 12:05 PM
GothNAPrepsBody I feel that they should have been broken up and that they knew that that was comming but i wonder was it realy necessary

Lets take a moment of silence for them.... :(




Okay time to get high. :)
Apr 10th, 2003 12:21 PM
mburbank Hebe should be capitalized. And you're right. It was nice. The rest of your comment just seemed forced. Sorry, Ronnie is still more repulsive than you right now.

Jeanette. He'll never do more than Post 'free speech' because he is constitutionally unable to admit he's wrong. I responded to his witless charge more than once, even demonstrating that I personally view free speech to be more important than the seperation of church and state and that while personally I think it would be a poor idea, I would support the legal right to prayer in school as long as all and any prayer were allowed. Naldo got all confused and asked us to believe he would support Satanist prayer in school if there were Satanist students.

Ronnies take on Jesus was that "He was not into Politics". I said this put him at Odds with W, and posted multiple sources, which did indeed view the (and report) the quote differently, but all agreed that Bush had meant he saw Jesus as his favorite Political philosipher. PEGGY NOONAN, a complete W psycophant, is on public record as thinking that's what he meant and chalking it up to poor debating skills. As if I hadn't done enough work for Ronnie, I then finally found and posted an article with actual verbatim text and the order of who said what. I offered him multiple interpretations, I even went so far as to include one that would allow Ronnie to save face with Bush taking the question as being about thought in general as opposed to political thought. Not only did I not get a thank you for doing his research for him, I didn't even get a response. He'd already decided his answer to the question was that I hadn't given him anything to answer. He hasn't even weighed in on what he thinks W thinks, or what he himself thinks, let alone if there's a disagreement there. Pretty stubborn coming from a man who claims to be open to questions.

"I didn't write the article. Not my words"
I think we all agree there. The question is, why did you post it? Your current answer "Just bringing the news to I-mockery" is ridiculous. You chose to post it, this choice surely shows something as it was not a random selection, and you don't have the strength of character to comment because it might reveal something about you as a person. But you'll just say "I didn't write the article. Not my words" and pretend you think it's a response.

"Sorry Max, Justice is a good thing and I hope to see more. "
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realized you just meant generic Justice as opposed to the welts shown in those photos. And you were just sort of randomly commenting out of context on your love of justice and not supporting the execution of justice by an armed police force as opposed to the judiciary. 'Cause that would be, you know, hating something America stands for. I apologize for misunderstanding you. I'm sure it has nothing to do with you either horrendously mistating your case, backpeddling or just being a very heartless, uncaring person.

"I'm only going by your own words. "

I'm sorry, Nalds, which word would those be speciffically? I mean, I hate to ask you to do some work, but in context, IE me disliking you for who you are as opposed to some poor sportsmanship regarding war, what words are you thinking of here? Espcially since my dislike of you predates the war. Come up with an example. Unless you're lying.

"Or posting that stupid ass nonexistant submarine letter."
-Me

"I don't know what you're talking about."
-Naldo

Big shock. Of course, you would if you
A.) Read this message board instead of just posting on it.
or
B.) Read the paragraph you took that quote from and parsed the meaning from it by using the verbs and subjects.
or
C.) Had a sense of humor more developed than a Marine Gelly.


And Proto. I knew you'd get my joke. It was for you. Heart eyes pulsing emoticon.
Apr 10th, 2003 11:31 AM
VinceZeb Nice to see that the hebe took some time off reading the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and sucking the bone marrow out of little Arab and Christian children's bones to insult me.
Apr 10th, 2003 11:03 AM
Vibecrewangel
Free Speech
Quote:
"Let's hope he does a better job than demonstrating I hate what America Stands For."

Free speech.
Now, EXPLAIN IT.

How is Max against free speech?
Apr 10th, 2003 10:20 AM
Jeanette X
Quote:
"Let's hope he does a better job than demonstrating I hate what America Stands For."

Free speech.
Free speech? No shit Sherlock. You keep saying that whenever someone criticizes you. Idiot, do you think free speech means you can't be criticized?

Quote:
Sorry Max, Justice is a good thing and I hope to see more. I'm sorry you disagree but I'm not surprised.
You ass. Excessive use of force is not justice. Justice is not to be decided by police, it is to be decided by courts. The police do not decide who is innocent and who is guilty.
Apr 10th, 2003 08:09 AM
The_Rorschach Ronnie, you're such a fucking weasel sometimes. Is it so hard to admit you might have erred? Being a Christian doesn't make you as omnipotent as God himself, or any who oppose your views heretical heathens.

Quote:
Burbank: "Or deciding wether he or W are wrong about Jesus being a Political Philosipher."
Ronnie: "Where is the transcript where Bush said that. The sources you gave contradicted each other."
IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. Before even reading the transcipts you started defending Bush's supposed statement, and, furthermore, asserted you agreed with it personally. WHO CARES IF HE SAID IT. YOU AGREED TO IT ANYWAY. Does it somehow make your agreement with the thought that Jesus was a political philospher invalid if Bush didn't say it first? Is there a hand up your ass making you talk?

I, personally, believe Christ's teachings can have political implications if you wish to view them in that light. To wit:

Jesus counseled nonviolence and resisted violent reciprocity even when undertaking the sufferage of crufication. Can this not be seen as national neutrality, as Norway and Sweden maintained during World War 2?

Jesus said "Give all that you own to the poor" (Mark 14:3-7 if memory serves) Can this possibly have anything to do with taxation policies and the redistribution of wealth?

Jesus included foreigners, strangers, outcasts and the unclean in his compassion. Can this by chance carry any meaning for America's immigration policy and its responsibilities to people in other nations?

Thats just off the top of my head Ronnie. I swear, sometimes I can't help but think you're a character designed to make conservatives look two dimensional and fanatics for ignorance.
Apr 10th, 2003 07:26 AM
Ronnie Raygun "Let's hope he does a better job than demonstrating I hate what America Stands For."

Free speech.

"Or deciding wether he or W are wrong about Jesus being a Political Philosipher."

Where is the transcript where Bush said that. The sources you gave contradicted each other.

"Or admitting it was stupid to post that "Smoking WMD" article so fast and that he was wrong to emotionally invest in it or that he posted the article for a reason."

I didn't write the article. Not my words.




"Or facing the fact that his "I hope to see more of this" moment was shaefully ugly, base and SO far from any Christian morality he might as well call himslef a Friggin' Zoroastrian for all the sense it would make."

Sorry Max, Justice is a good thing and I hope to see more. I'm sorry you disagree but I'm not surprised.

"Or admitting that I have lots of reason to dislike him that are way ahead of some sort of "My Team Lost" sour grapes inanity he thinks I think about the War (Which is the only way he's able to think of it)"

I'm only going by your own words.

"Or posting that stupid ass nonexistant submarine letter."\

I don't know what you're talking about.
Apr 9th, 2003 09:28 PM
Protoclown It made me laugh when you called him Namor
Apr 9th, 2003 08:49 PM
mburbank Let's hope he does a better job than demonstrating I hate what America Stands For.

Or deciding wether he or W are wrong about Jesus being a Political Philosipher.

Or admitting it was stupid to post that "Smoking WMD" article so fast and that he was wrong to emotionally invest in it or that he posted the article for a reason.

Or facing the fact that his "I hope to see more of this" moment was shaefully ugly, base and SO far from any Christian morality he might as well call himslef a Friggin' Zoroastrian for all the sense it would make.

Or admitting that I have lots of reason to dislike him that are way ahead of some sort of "My Team Lost" sour grapes inanity he thinks I think about the War (Which is the only way he's able to think of it)

Or posting that stupid ass nonexistant submarine letter.

Oh, wait, that's the other objectionable sub human.

Get it? 'Sub' human?
Apr 9th, 2003 07:05 PM
Protoclown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
Well, that's easy.
You people were saying that it was going to be like another Vietman. Vietnam lasted 10 years. .... .this war lasted 20 days....
I never said that. And this war is not over yet. Mostly over, I'll grant you that, but as long as there are still casualties mounting on both sides it matters a great deal to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
You people said terrorist attackes were going to happen after we went into Iraq....they didn't.
Once again I see you are looking in your crystal ball and divining the future. If I'm not mistaken, tomorrow and all days beyond it take place AFTER WE WENT INTO IRAQ. I still fear that there will be terror attacks that result from this. It took nearly a DECADE for September 11th to happen and you're saying that because it's been two weeks we're in the clear?? Are you that fucking naive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
You said there would be thousands upon thousands of Americans casualties.....you were way off.
Nope, never said that. Liar. This one you attributed to me, not just "you people". I'll grant that you probably left off the "people" accidentally, but I don't belong to some group where I simply parrot everything they want me to. That would be what you're doing. I lament the fact that there were ANY American casualties, but before you get all upset, it's not a reaction born of shock and surprise. Yes, I do realize that people die in wars. That doesn't make it suck any less however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
You people said that there would be 10's of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead........again, way off.
Once again, I never said that. Here's a question though. How many thousands have to die before you give a crap about them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
You said we were only in it for the oil........this is proven to be a lazy and a bit off target.
I'll grant you that this is the closest one to being true. I never said we were ONLY in it for the oil, but I came damn close to saying it. I don't think the reasoning behind our going in there was so simple, there were a lot of factors playing into the decision. But if you don't think the oil had a LOT to do with it, I would question your intelligence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
You people said that the Turks were going to invade from the North.......they didn't.
....and there is more to come.
I never said that one either. But it could still happen.

So we're back to square one again. I want to hear about how I, PROTOCLOWN, AM PERSONALLY WRONG about this war. Don't tell me about how the Democrats are wrong (I'm not one), don't tell me about how the liberals are wrong, don't tell me about how "you people" are wrong. My views cannot be so easily categorized.

I want to know how I am wrong about the war. Which you have yet to tell me.
Apr 9th, 2003 02:44 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
Uhhh. I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not a judge.

I do have a right however to voice my opinion.
So I take it you don't know? I'm not suprised. Well Ronnie, "excessive use of force" is when police officers use much more force than is actually neccessary to do the job.

And yes, you do have the right to voice your opinion, regardless of how ignorant it is. I am not trying to deny you that.

Quote:
You people were saying that it was going to be like another Vietman. Vietnam lasted 10 years. .... .this war lasted 20 days....
The war isn't over yet. What about Tikrit?
You know Ronnie, as much as I disagree with you, I really hope that you are right about how this war will turn out. I really hope that my fears turn out to have been totally groundless. But I doubt that they will be.
Apr 9th, 2003 01:16 PM
kellychaos
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
"I hope to see more of it"

Jesus, a man who willingly allowed himself to be crucified for his opposition to authority and who's civil disobedience often crossed lthe legal boundaries of his time, would be ashamed of you.
If Jesus never lived and Socrates was the new martyr for those principles, would there be a new religion with the morter and pestel as it's symbol ... hmmm ... Just thinking out loud ... Carry on.
Apr 9th, 2003 01:06 PM
mburbank "I hope to see more of this"
-Naldo.

I find that a repulsive response to seeing that picture, devoid of the most basic human compassion. Whatever took place, viewing those wounds and responding that you 'hope to see more' refelcts fairly poorly on you as a human being, especially one who claims a relationship with Jesus. You're response?


"HAHAHA!

You people are falling apart because it's so evident that you were wrong about the war and that things are going well for the administration and even better...the country. "
-Naldo

I promise you my current reaction has nothing whatever to do with this war or any. It is a deep seated revulsion at your reaction to those wounds. I assume when you look at the corpses of Iraqi Soldiers you are unmoved, you hope to see more of that as well. The fact they had parents, children, the hopes and dreams one assumes even you have is utterly irelivant. You hope to see more. If they'd killed the girl in the photo, and rubber bullets can and do kill, would you hope to see more, or do those welts slake your thirst?

Here's where we differ. I am capable of looking at those wounds and thinking of how painful they must be. All you see in her and in me is the War. IF she threw rocks at the police, if anyone did, that's very, very bad. But it changes nothing about the quality her pain. Jesus gave every indication the suffering of the guilty mattered to him. Did he say of the woman taken in adultery, "Hey, no stoning, she didn't do it!" ? You give every indication the suffering of the guilty is pleasurable to you. You hope to see more.

And Sspad is right. Your asumption of guilt instead of an embrace of our judicial system which assumes innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law, is a crystal clear indication that you hate at least one thing America Stands for.
Apr 9th, 2003 01:05 PM
Ronnie Raygun Well, that's easy.

You people were saying that it was going to be like another Vietman. Vietnam lasted 10 years. .... .this war lasted 20 days....

You people said terrorist attackes were going to happen after we went into Iraq....they didn't.

You said there would be thousands upon thousands of Americans casualties.....you were way off.

You people said that there would be 10's of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead........again, way off.

You said we were only in it for the oil........this is proven to be a lazy and a bit off target.

You people said that the Turks were going to invade from the North.......they didn't.

....and there is more to come.
Apr 9th, 2003 12:54 PM
Protoclown
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspadowsky
Why, that sounds an awful lot like judging someone before they are given the fair and speedy trial to which they are entitled. Which shows your hatred of two Constitutional Amendments, and therefore America itself.
Not only that, Spad, but judging people like that sounds awfully un-Christian to me as well. Hrmm....

And Ronnie, you keep saying that "we" were "wrong about the war". In what way were we wrong about the war?

I am against the war. I don't care if Saddam is sitting on the biggest nuke ever made, I think the situation could have been handled differently. So I am personally against it. I support our troops, but not the government that put them there. I'm not saying that there won't be any good to come from the resolution, it's certainly possible. I'd just prefer we handled ourselves a little better in the diplomatic arena before any of this stuff got out of hand.

So in what way am I "wrong" about the war? I am certain you won't answer me, but I'll ask anyway.
Apr 9th, 2003 12:42 PM
Ronnie Raygun Uhhh. I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not a judge.

I do have a right however to voice my opinion.
Apr 9th, 2003 12:38 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
It's pretty obvious that they were breaking the law. Are you saying that they were not?
Of course they were. But it doesn't justify excessive use of force.
Do you know what excessive use of force is? Its quiz time Ronnie.
Apr 9th, 2003 12:34 PM
ranxer many protests are easily wrecked by a few people against the protesers getting into the group and throwing things.. even the police have been known to have officers dressed to look like protestors and starting a riot.

its pretty scary that the patriot act and homeland security have put aside due process by declaring anyone gathering to oppose profit as economic terrorists, thereby giving up thier rights.
all it takes is one rock thrown for the police to start firing into the the crowd and causing mayhem for anyone present.

as far as paid protesters goes, ive read that the clear channel group is the largest funder of pro-war rallies, the anti-war rallies are grassroots groups with virtually no money.. they organize a rally and try to get the word out with almost no money and the clearchannel groups organize an opposing rally then blitz the papers and tv with paid advertising to make it look like the anti-war folks are just gathering in response to pro-war/pro-troops folks. big money wins the media battle too often
Apr 9th, 2003 12:19 PM
sspadowsky
Quote:
I'd hate for them not to be prosecuted for breaking the law. I hope the judge throws the book at them.
Why, that sounds an awful lot like judging someone before they are given the fair and speedy trial to which they are entitled. Which shows your hatred of two Constitutional Amendments, and therefore America itself.

How do you sleep at night, being so un-American?
________
LovelyWendie99
Apr 9th, 2003 12:16 PM
Ronnie Raygun I've never seen anyone try so hard and yet fail to connect the dots.

It's pretty obvious that they were breaking the law. Are you saying that they were not?

If so, then you will be disagreeing with the protesters themselves.

I agree that they should have their day in court. I'd hate for them not to be prosecuted for breaking the law. I hope the judge throws the book at them.
Apr 9th, 2003 10:53 AM
sspadowsky Oh, so you believe that the cops are always right, and their suspects are guilty until proven innocent, hmmm? I believe the 8th and 14th amendments provide for Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law, respectively.

So obviously you hate those, and therefore you hate what Amercia stands for.
________
MEXICO CITY HOTEL
Apr 9th, 2003 10:44 AM
Ronnie Raygun I give our good women and men in unifrom who are out their every day enforcing the law and cleaning up the streets the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise........not vice versa.
Apr 9th, 2003 08:16 AM
KevinTheOmnivore How manythrew rocks, Ronnie?? 1? 5? 10??? Isanybody other than the police verifying this?? Anybody other than garbage Fox News???

What the article however DOES clearly show is that the police had political motives to use such force. That's great.

You are inhuman.
Apr 9th, 2003 07:46 AM
Ronnie Raygun wOw! Great response.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:16 AM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.