+- MNF Club Forums (https://www.mnfclub.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://www.mnfclub.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.mnfclub.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: I would like to have an argument, please! (/showthread.php?tid=1280)
Pages:
1
2
I would like to have an argument, please! - busyman1 - 07-21-2016
It has been said in a couple of other threads that I behaved incorrectly by encouraging a rather heated discussion and then, realizing that I contributed to moving the conversation way off the original topic, suggesting that further discussion on the new subject be conducted in private.
Some people found this rude and inappropriate.
In an attempt to remedy this situation, I propose this thread as a totally off-topic thread for people to discuss (and argue) any point they wish to make. This should keep such discussions public, while preventing potential trolling of other topics on the forum.
Moderators - I hope I'm not breaking any rules by doing this.
I apologize to everyone who I have inconvenienced by contributing to off-topic conversations in other threads.
P.S. Monty Python rules
RE: I would like to have an argument, please! - blahbitty - 07-22-2016
I want my slaw!
RE: I would like to have an argument, please! - Kallisto - 07-22-2016
You want an argument? Here you go:
RE: I would like to have an argument, please! - busyman1 - 07-22-2016
LOL That's what I am talking about. Actually, the reason for this particular thread is that my opinions on some matters, expressed in a couple of other threads, specifically this one: http://www.mnfclub.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=208 and this one: http://www.mnfclub.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1271 have been considered sexist, hostile and disgusting by some members of this forum (including a couple of moderators). Rather than pissing off a whole bunch of folks, AND the moderators - I decided to create a separate thread where anyone who disagrees with me (or each other, for that matter) can do so to their hearts' content.
I can promise you that, no matter what names you chose to call me - if you and I can argue a point intelligently (without "just contradiction")
- I think we can have a lot of fun and let off some steam, whether or not we convince each other.A little disclaimer: take a look at my "about me" section - I am in fact politically incorrect, and all those other things. This thread is started just so that we CAN be opinionated and politically incorrect, without bothering the rest of the "polite" folks out there
So let's not bug moderators about how offensive we are in this particular thread - this is the idea here Keep it here, don't take it out. Unless, of course, the conversations get beyond simply "heated" and into the "against forum rules" territory.
RE: I would like to have an argument, please! - blahbitty - 07-27-2016
BUT I WANT MY SLAW!
RE: I would like to have an argument, please! - -J- - 08-07-2016
(07-27-2016, 06:57 AM)blahbitty Wrote: BUT I WANT MY SLAW!
YOU HAVE YOUR SLAW SIR!!
RE: I would like to have an argument, please! - Cath - 08-07-2016
By the way, want an argument? Let's talk about those Mexican immigrants trying to pass the border getting killed. A country killing foreign civilians cannot be considered as great.
What about Europe? (Not a country ofc) They rescue refugees, sometimes, but they aren't helping in a good way. If there are refugees, you can't solve the problems by "welcoming" them. You have to ensure that the menace they are fleeing is no more. So, stop complaining about "welcoming" refugees and do something. You're willing to pay to keep the banks up, but you won't do anything concrete about the "war-ish" problems.
RE: I would like to have an argument, please! - Lexirific - 08-07-2016
He's been banned, Cath. Not sure he can really argue back.
RE: I would like to have an argument, please! - busyman2 - 08-07-2016
Hi Cath. Yeah, after I spoke to Emmie and she's apparently resolved whatever issues moderators and other forum users had with me, I didn't log onto my system in a couple of days, and today found myself banned. So while I wait for the moderators to clear things up for me as to what happened during the two days that I was absent that caused the ban - onto your topic
Targeting civilians specifically rates very low with any army. Soldiers generally try to avoid civilian casualties. In this case (Mexico and US), however, we're not exactly talking about civilians. We're not even talking about immigrants, as an immigrant is someone who's been granted permission to legally enter the country. People that cross the border illegally, despite seeing prominent signs forbidding them to do so are illegal immigrants. By the way, I may be mistaken, but I believe the signs do warn that trespassers may be fired upon. So anyone crossing any border of any country illegally does so with knowing that they are risking their life. Considering how easy the US/Mexican border is to cross (very long border, very few guards), I would assume that any number of terrorists and criminals can and do cross it, both ways. And that a lot of them are armed and dangerous. Border patrol is correct to shoot first, and ask questions later, I think, because otherwise they are putting their own lives in danger. I am sorry that many people in Mexico live so poorly that they are forced to go to the US. But it's always best to do it legally, or run the risk of being shot. They are no longer civilians at this point - they are potential invaders from a foreign nation.
By the way - there is a fairly inexpensive way to lock down the borders. Look at Russian land borders (with China, for example): two rows of barbed wire fences, with 10 meters of land in-between. Between the fences, as well as 10 meters to either side, is a strip of nicely plowed loose soil (keeps footprints very well). A service road for border guards runs along the fence. Fence is under low electric current that detects breaking of any part of it. Cameras monitor every part of the border. Much cheaper than Trumps "wall"
Very effective.European refugees is a very different story. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the people of a particular country to ensure that they are not menaced by their own government, and to remove that menace, if necessary. In other words - revolt. If the menace is external, and the country cannot stand against it - it can ask assistance from it's allies. Its non-combatants may take refuge with such of their neighbors as will take them in.
What do we see in Europe, though? Many (very many) of the refugees are able-bodied, military-age strong young men. Nothing prevents them from fighting for their country. But they prefer to run rather than fight for their own country. And they call upon others to do their fighting for them. They seek refuge not in the nearest place that will offer it to them (neighboring countries), no - they pick and choose the countries where they will have the best life while others are dying in their stead. That is why so many of them want to go to Germany - not because it is the closest safe place, but because they will get more free stuff from Germany. As a result, these strong young men obviously feel superior to the native Germans - the Germans have to work to make a living, and these guys were invited, and are being paid, basically, to live in Germany. Superiority breeds contempt. And so these young men think nothing of raping German women, and committing other crimes there - they do not respect the very country that offered to help them. Of course there are many among the refugees that really need help - the old, the sick, women and children... But men, of an age when they can take up arms and fight for what is theirs, have no business being "refugees". And the countries of Europe, most of them pretty far removed from the areas of conflict, should not have opened this door, for it is nearly impossible to close. UK finally realized their peril, and is now taking steps to leave the EU and eject these illegal immigrants.
Any people defending their country and their way of living should be directly involved in the conflict. If they run from it, even though they can and should fight - they in effect give up their right to their country, their freedom, their right to self-govern. This, buy the way, was one of the basic premises behind the American Revolution (war for independence). And America really DID stand for freedom, for a very long time (too bad it's all talk and no substance now). I think European countries should accept only the obvious civilians (those, who obviously cannot fight in a war for physical reasons - age, infirmity, etc.), and turn away anyone who can legally be in the armed forces. And after the Syrians take their own country back, themselves, maybe with some help from Europeans - then all those refugees should go back home, because that is where their home IS. And if they THEN want to emigrate to Germany or elsewhere - they should do so by following the standard legal process.
RE: I would like to have an argument, please! - -J- - 08-07-2016
Please don't derail this thread, busyman.
Cath just told me I wanted an argument, and I don't. This is a direct threat to my right not to have arguments, and I'm willing to argue to defend that right.
Do you want slaw, too?