|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 24th, 2006 11:22 AM | ||||
| ziggytrix | Actually, to be proper it would be "Neither would I," but this is a message board, not a term paper. Nine times out of ten I can divine KK's meaning without rereading a sentence 4 times. But the tenth, oh man, I maybe it's even better that it's far-right nationalist blabber, Engrish (from an allegedly native English speaker, no less!) makes me titter. | |||
| Jan 24th, 2006 10:20 AM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Perhaps you mean DLC....? |
|||
| Jan 24th, 2006 10:13 AM | ||||
| Cosmo Electrolux |
Quote:
EDIT: tell you what.....I'll edit the post to make everyone happy... |
|||
| Jan 24th, 2006 10:10 AM | ||||
| mburbank |
I have no idea why or if you'd lie about English being your native language. HOWEVER "DNC is for the more moderate amongst liberals, and thus to me is not an accurate portrayal of all liberals." THAT does not read like a setence written by someone who's natiove labguage is English. The word 'amongst' has no place in their, 'and thus to me' is rendered 'I think' or if you really want to be high and mighty 'in my opinion', the DNC is an organization which means it can't be a portrayal, etc. etc. etc. 1.) You write very badly. 2.) You don't seem even slightly aware of it. 3.) Your tone suggests you think you are expressing yourself well. 4.) Your posts suggest content, but the writing obscures it in ways that could not possibly be your intent. There are three things which can lead to a voice like yours. 1.) Second language. You read like directions in English written by someone native to Japan. 2.) Brain dysfunction. Either from birth or trauma. 3.) Overreaching combined with mimicry. If you can think of another explanation, please elaborate. Until then, I'm going with 1 or 2 out opf charity, as in both scenarios it would not be your fault. |
|||
| Jan 24th, 2006 03:58 AM | ||||
| Kulturkampf |
My native language IS English. Why would I lie? DNC is for the more moderate amongst liberals, and thus to me is not an accurate portrayal of all liberals. |
|||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 04:10 PM | ||||
| kahljorn | Shouldn't that be, "Me neither"? | |||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 04:07 PM | ||||
| Pharaoh |
Quote:
|
|||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 02:30 PM | ||||
| Cosmo Electrolux |
Quote:
|
|||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 01:15 PM | ||||
| Dole |
Quote:
blah liberals blah bitter liberals blah no life blah liberals blah liberals |
|||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 01:03 PM | ||||
| mburbank | He says English is his native language, but I'm not sure I'm signing for that package. | |||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 12:21 PM | ||||
| Chojin |
Quote:
|
|||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 12:17 PM | ||||
| Cosmo Electrolux | what, exactly , is Kulturecums native language? | |||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 11:54 AM | ||||
| mburbank |
" I d not speak of them as being encompassed exclusively by the DNC by anymeans, being that the groups which I consider to be most threatening and extreme are... the more extreme." Anybody want to take a stab at rendering this as a sentence with a meaning? I'm particularly at a loss about what something "encompassed exclusively by the DNC" would be. |
|||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 11:40 AM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
What the hell is a liberal of "the DNC persuasion"? That makes no sense at all. Are you telling me that radicals on all sides say extreme things? Thanks, but I don't see how that's synonymous with modern Liberalism. |
|||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 11:01 AM | ||||
| Chojin | I think Kultur is lunlun's dad :< | |||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 08:18 AM | ||||
| Immortal Goat |
Quote:
|
|||
| Jan 23rd, 2006 04:53 AM | ||||
| Kulturkampf |
Quote:
 DNC senators, like RNC senators, are inclined to filter their opinions through public opinion, whereas with the Liberals we are talking about a wide-ranging group of freaks who have no regard, merely are focusing on the issues as they see them through their silly-glasses. Common dreams is a large liberal mouthpiece, and these columnists and peoples make up a distinct thread in liberal opinion that is extreme and shitty. So do you consider yourself a liberal of the DNC persuasion? |
|||
| Jan 21st, 2006 01:38 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
So Kultur, I asked you to provide me with some liberals who were talking about Iran, I give you two Democratic U.S. Senators, arguably leaders of their party. You give me a blog, a college professor, and Common Dreams (which is really just a news message board, so I'm at a loss on that one). Weren';t you the one who said "don't confuse a part for a party?" 
|
|||
| Jan 21st, 2006 06:59 AM | ||||
| Spectre X | Are you just stupid or is reading comprehension a "liberal" thing? | |||
| Jan 20th, 2006 11:43 PM | ||||
| Kulturkampf |
Liberals are acting as if Iran is the next Iraq and making references to the Iran-Contra scandal. "Iran will be the next victim of George Bush's war on terror." Some are simply highlighting the notion that the Europeans and Americans cannot fix the problem. We get some pleasant new liberal theories, as well, froma Ph.D.: "Iran is Cheney's next target ( note , I did not mention Bush who is the cheerleader for the Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal ) and the reason Iran is next has nothing to do with a nuclear threat and everything to do with the financial threat of Iran introducing a euro-based energy exchange." Popular liberal mouthpiece, Common Dreams, is noting that the war on Iran has already begun and not for a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue, but "the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran." "President George Bush’s inflammatory comments last Friday menacing Iran with military attack have again underscored the lawless character of the US administration." Liberals are very doubtful of the actual threat that it poses. Liberals are propsoing that the Iranian President is acting this way to get us into a conflict and solidify his position within Iran (?!?), and immediate conclusion would be for us to avoid a war. Since 2003 the liberals have been looking at our stances towards Iran as 'aggression.' They say "Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex. " Liberals are saying more and more cute things, already justifying the Iranian cause in fighting the US: "Iran must defend itself if it is attacked by the United States or Israel. Defending one’s country against unprovoked aggression is sanctioned under international law and is a requirement of true leadership. We would expect no different if either the United States or Israel was attacked." The liberals are great at running their mouths. |
|||
| Jan 20th, 2006 11:10 AM | ||||
| mburbank |
Perfect. When Liberals such as Russia and China . Many leftists would have an opinion about our foreign policy, but in reality it is other countries taking actions that are their opinions, even though the two things are not paralell. Or maybe I mean something else but I in no way have a word placement which would make what I mean into a thing that could be understood by another person. Many people make out foreign policies of other countries as if it is determined by their own national economic interest, but few people make out Amercian war efforts by us as attempts to protect their our own investments! Hah! How much will you lose at the internet before you learrn to speak English in sentences by you? |
|||
| Jan 20th, 2006 10:49 AM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Re: Peace & Nuclear Proliferation For Oil Quote:
"Sen. Clinton Urges U.N. Sanctions Against Iran" "Bayh urging Senate to back Iran sanctions" |
|||
| Jan 20th, 2006 10:02 AM | ||||
| Kulturkampf |
Peace & Nuclear Proliferation For Oil Russia and China have been slow to accost Iran because of their large investments and contracts they have won from Iran. Perfect: "Moscow, with a $1 billion stake building Iran's first atomic reactor, and Beijing, reliant on Iranian oil for its burgeoning economy, have so far blocked a consensus for referral within the International Atomic Energy Agency." Sometimes the politics of opportunity aren't always stacked against the United States; often times, the vested interests of other states in their own economies play games as well. Naturally, these nations are slow to do anything because their reputation is at stake. Many would make an argument that France and Russia each opposed wars in Iraq from economic points of view, the Russians with a $7 billion debt owed to them by Hussein from Soviet times, and France had a $20 billion contract through Lukoil to drill in Iraq. Many leftists would say that our calls for resolution of this problem are us 'coming down hard on Iran,' and 'setting the stage for another imperialist invasion.' But in reality, it is a situation where other states drag their feet because of the economic investment which they have in the nation. Many people make out American wars as if it is aggression in the name of oil, but few people make out unreasonable peace efforts by other states as attempts to protect their own investments. |
|||
