I have a newfound respect for Gaddafi

[Lostlover]

LostLover, I Love you man but what is your "Faith/Religion"? I'm asking because if you are a Muslim then that explains part of what you stated...My Father & Step-Mother are Muslims (they Love Farakhan) and I'm not even going to see them until I KNOW I don't have to sit and hear whatever they gotta say......

So Is there another reason why you feel the way you do? Or do you have an issue with "Assassinations" regardless of who the individual is?

Will you give a bit more details?

MM, I'm not a Muslim. Never was nor have I been.

I'd like to think I'm human. I don't like to see people dying whether they're Iraqi or American, black or white.

 

[Lostlover]

Agreed. The comparison is odious. But if I close the thread, I'll be accused to showing favoritism to foreigners again.

If the membership wants it closed, I could just argue it's the will of the people. What do you all think?

What rule did I break?

 

[MisterMajestic]

MM, I'm not a Muslim. Never was nor have I been.

I'd like to think I'm human. I don't like to see people dying whether they're Iraqi or American, black or white.

.......

 

[palbert]

Close this Thread? Why? Oh, we haven't started demeaning each other yet.

But let's keep this rabid thing open:

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7549553&postcount=1

 

[Lostlover]

This moderating here hasn't even been hit and miss.

You can refer to Obama as the "N word" with impunity like MusicmanBFlat. You can talk about Obama eating watermelons like Iman did. But, the moment you talk about a foreigner's country, your thread is locked down.

Pathetic story: I asked why MusicmanBFlat's racists threads and posts were left untouched but mine expressing my opinions (non-racist) were locked. The moderator then told me they dealt with MusicmanBFlat's usage of the "N word" at Obama. I accepted this at face value. Well, a year later, I was in a forum I'm not normally posting in. And you know what I found it? MusicmanBFlat wasn't banned for using the "N word," but for having multiple aliases on this site. Completely dishonest. The message I took away: You can use the "N word," just don't use the this word on multiple accounts from the same IP address.

It got so bad with MusicManBFlat that people here (myself included) doubted he was black. I thought he was getting a pass at using the "N word" because he had a black man in his avatar who I assumed was MusicmanBFlat. So, the mods were completely aware of this tussle because it was a big issue.


And yes, I am no less on topic than Jackoroe was when he talked about closing my thread.

 

[CowboyBob]

I don't have respect for Gaddafi. He was a madman, a murderer. Sure, he stayed in Libya but that doesn't mean he deserves respect.

Like we talked about in another thread as to why he didn't take off with his billions and lay on a beach in Rio, it was said he honestly didn't think he did anything wrong, He was a sociopath. That doesn't deserve respect.

For what it's worth, President Obama made the world safer by getting rid of another terrorist dictator. It's President Obama that deserves respect.

 

[Lostlover]

I don't have respect for Gaddafi. He was a madman, a murderer. Sure, he stayed in Libya but that doesn't mean he deserves respect.

Like we talked about in another thread as to why he didn't take off with his billions and lay on a beach in Rio, it was said he honestly didn't think he did anything wrong, He was a sociopath. That doesn't deserve respect.

For what it's worth, President Obama made the world safer by getting rid of another terrorist dictator. It's President Obama that deserves respect.

Respect is probably too strong of a word. I guess I should have said, "Gaddafi talks the talk while Bush and co. run wars."

 

[palbert]

.... For what it's worth, President Obama made the world safer by getting rid of another terrorist dictator. It's President Obama that deserves respect.

It's worthy thatObama recognized that Britain and France were going ahead - I'm not saying they were doing a good job; another Suez Canal debacle possibly - without him so he came in to play World Leader.

A good leader guides his constituency, in this case, Britain, France, and oil. He deserves respect, but not at the head table.

And somewhere along the way could we declare War on somebody? It has been since 1941 and we've had a lot of non-War related deaths - of our soldiers and of civilians. Or did I miss that amendment to the Constitution?

 

[Telstra]

Say what you want about him. Call him a dictator, a murderer, a thief and more. But, just don't call him a coward.

He could have bailed and accepted exile, but decided to stay (and died) in Libya.

Compare that to his peers here like Reagan, Bush, and Cheney who all dodged the wars they could have participated in. Cheney even enrolled in a community college several times to get out of war and by then, he was a law school graduate.

While Gaddafi died a brutal death, at least he stood for what he believed in. I can respect that. I don't respect starting wars, getting people killed while you yourself refused to participate in it.

They did dodged? Yeah thats coward.

 

[jackoroe]

What rule did I break?

If you broke a rule, we'd have let you know about it by now. Just another example of a thread that's got a ridiculous premise, that's all. Respect a mass murderer who killed a couple hundred of our people over Lockerbie? A man who murdered thousands of his own people? A man who stole his country blind while his subjects suffered?

You have a very strange set of values to consider any person of this caliber to be worthy of anything other than utter contempt. He's dead and that may be a good thing for Libya. That remains to be soon over a longer term than a couple of days.

Any comparison to any American elected official, no matter who they are is pretty fucking stupid IMO. But that's just me.

 

[Just_Believe18]

^ Agreed. I'm for locking it.

True, no rule has been broken, but the thread is toxic, and will degenerate into a mess of personal attacks due to its insensitive nature.

 

[Lefty]

If you broke a rule, we'd have let you know about it by now. Just another example of a thread that's got a ridiculous premise, that's all. Respect a mass murderer who killed a couple hundred of our people over Lockerbie? A man who murdered thousands of his own people? A man who stole his country blind while his subjects suffered?

You have a very strange set of values to consider any person of this caliber to be worthy of anything other than utter contempt. He's dead and that may be a good thing for Libya. That remains to be soon over a longer term than a couple of days.

Any comparison to any American elected official, no matter who they are is pretty fucking stupid IMO. But that's just me.

Jackoroe...

Don't play the JACKANAPES's keeper here. This forum suffers particularly
and obviously from an inability to take a moment for humour in a stress
laden world and environs. LOSTLOVER is providing an idiots routine and
clearly is spoofing one and all .

Come on, unsubstantiated rhetoric that flies in the face of fact....dissing
media personalities and people in the news. Casting aspersions like holy
water at mass....or foreskins at a........

.LIGHTEN UP....

It won't kill this forum to do a smirk and smile moment.


ok, thats my .02 (centavos) worth thrown in the pot..

 

[Lostlover]

They did dodged? Yeah thats coward.

They all dodged war. And yet they pushed a war on Iraq (that killed hundreds of thousands of people) and Americans (thousands).

They're all cowards. Gaddafi got what he deserved, but at least he stuck to his guns, no pun intended.

A lot of people in a certain generation love war and HATE Castro. Castro risked his life to overthrow the dictatorship. I don't believe in communism, but I do respect his willingness to risk his life for something he believes in.

For those here that think Bush isn't a war criminal: What are your thoughts on Saddam's invasion of Iran? Should he have been held accountable for killing thousands of Iranians?

 

[Lostlover]

If you broke a rule, we'd have let you know about it by now. Just another example of a thread that's got a ridiculous premise, that's all. Respect a mass murderer who killed a couple hundred of our people over Lockerbie? A man who murdered thousands of his own people? A man who stole his country blind while his subjects suffered?

You have a very strange set of values to consider any person of this caliber to be worthy of anything other than utter contempt. He's dead and that may be a good thing for Libya. That remains to be soon over a longer term than a couple of days.

Any comparison to any American elected official, no matter who they are is pretty fucking stupid IMO. But that's just me.

I said before this post that "respect" is too strong of a word.

So, what's the difference between Gaddafi and Bush? Didn't both of their actions cause the unnecessary deaths of thousands of people?

Not too much of a ridiculous premise, eh?

 

[Just_Believe18]

If posts/threads such as this are locked, it will lead to a posting chill, and then how will we know the unvarnished thoughts and beliefs of posters and their (mis)judgments, constant or otherwise, ill-thought or not?

Opprobrium, as in this thread, is a much better course.

I disagree. There's never been a posting chill on this forum.

It would actually improve discussion and dialogue. There should be a standard criteria for posting new topics on this sub-forum. There should be a specific topic, a source of news or an editorial to serve as an example/evidence, and a short explanation or interpretation about the topic. Just posting a new topic on some random opinion without any substance for other forumers to follow just invites ad hominem attacks and partisan-degenerative talking-points.

 

[Lefty]

Still laughing at our comedian....but...oh shit, did some other reading too.

Just in case our comedian needs a new launch point. ^

 

[Just_Believe18]

^ I don't think it's too hard to find a source to corroborate your viewpoint. Oftentimes, what sparks your enthusiasm to post something on here is from a news source that you just read. So just post the source with your opinion. It's not militaristic. No one is trying to oppress anyone.

Keep in mind, this is just for starting a thread. Any reply after that of course is just the opinion of other forumers expressing themselves.

Yes, people who just post a link without any interpretation or expressed opinion on the topic are just as bad. You need all three to jumpstart a legitimate discussion:

1. Statement (topic choice)
2. Evidence (some kind of linked example that people can click on to research and formulate an opinion)
3. Warrant (explanation or analysis of the topic based on the information you are sharing with everyone)

This is actually the fundamental structure to a debate. You have a lot stronger discussions this way.

 

[palbert]

I disagree. There's never been a posting chill on this forum.

It would actually improve discussion and dialogue. There should be a standard criteria for posting new topics on this sub-forum. There should be a specific topic, a source of news or an editorial to serve as an example/evidence, and a short explanation or interpretation about the topic. Just posting a new topic on some random opinion without any substance for other forumers to follow just invites ad hominem attacks and partisan-degenerative talking-points.

First, would you have me procure a Hall Pass to post?

I have seen scant evidence that would realize your fears in my brief time here. In any event, this forum is "not for the faint of heart."

Further, comments "personal in nature" here do not attack the mental health (although they may question the mental capacity), psychological stability, intimate personal decisions, or social fitness of a member. The forum for that is Hot Topics. (You can plain old insult there too but it might not be understood.)

 

[Just_Believe18]

@palbert. Hall pass. Hehe, that's a good one. You're overreacting here. When you say this discussion forum is "not for the faint of heart" you're actually agreeing with me. A lot of JUB members are turned off by the CE&P forum because it is about a lot of ad-hominems and partisan degenerative talking-points. What is positive about having that kind of image here? It discourages new blood from entering this forum and we end up having a lot of the same opinions that further discourages fresh discussion.

@Keeland. Actually, Keeland. If you started a thread like "Christianity is horseshit," it would be locked not because it lacks a source, but because it violates the CoC by inciting members to react to volatile opinions. This is the Current Events and Politics forum. That thread would not be topical.

@both. By the way, this is not some new, militaristic idea that I've come up with to oppress your opinions. Just look up the CE&P posting guidelines:

Use citations where appropriate. Members are strongly encouraged to document their sources when available. If you have to spend time defending the veracity of your source, you're not likely to have a successful discussion of your topic. Source citation also helps keep everyone honest when posting supposedly factual information. Other readers may discount your position if you fail to back up your assertions. If the issue or source material is contentious, threads may be closed until documentation is provided. ... Most particularly in the opening post of a new thread and as a general rule, any quote you republish must be augmented with your own opinion explaining why the quote is of interest. You should always include your own personal criticism, illustration, clarification, parody, or summary of the work you are quoting.

I'm just saying we should enforce the general rule.

 

[Just_Believe18]

It should go without saying that I wouldn't start such a thread in current affairs. However, in my opinion the OP chose the correct forum to state his opinion because Gahaffi/Quadaffi/Qadaffi is more current affairs at the moment than anything else.

Cite?

Hmm, except LostLover's topic is not really about Gadaffi, it's more about criticizing a former presidential administration by inaccurately glorifying a terrible dictator. Since it lacks a source or any credible information to support such a degrading statement, the discussion will only go downhill.

Sure. Rule #8 of JUB's Code of Conduct:

Please do not use language that sounds like, stands for, hints at, abbreviates, or insinuates hate speech (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, or religious slurs) or illegal activities.

"Horseshit" would qualify, don't you think?