Avatar

Please consider registering
Guest

Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Register Lost password?
sp_TopicIcon
Transgender ban US Military.
After consulting senior military officials and military experts.
Avatar
Ann
Star
Limited Access

Members
Forum Posts: 1101
Member Since:
Friday, August 21, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
76
Friday, August 11, 2017 - 7:33 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Phoenix- "I have NEVER been offered a valid source talking to the left online I do not think."

Maybe, because like me, people don't want to waste their energy on having an exhausting topic with someone they don't know. The internet is full of trolls. Why the hell do I have to justify myself to people that are not in my real life? shrug_gif

The following users say thanks to Ann for this post:

soup, Glenn
Avatar
Phoenix9061210
Planetary ruler
Limited Access

Members
Forum Posts: 250
Member Since:
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
77
Friday, August 11, 2017 - 8:10 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

The previous responses regarding people being gay or ... transgender in the past also include no sources. Firstly, gay is not the issue we are talking about transgender is. Secondly, looking at a photo and saying someone is obviously gay is not a valid point. There are a lot of people that look gay whom are extremely straight.

Ann said
Phoenix- "I have NEVER been offered a valid source talking to the left online I do not think."

Maybe, because like me, people don't want to waste their energy on having an exhausting topic with someone they don't know. The internet is full of trolls. Why the hell do I have to justify myself to people that are not in my real life? shrug_gif

That is absolutely fine and that is your choice. However, if two people are engaging in a political discussion and one person offers a source explaining their point of view, and includes a point of fact, and another person says they personally believe something and expects other to believe it as well with no source, then in my view, and I know this might be radical, I think that the person offering the source has more legitimacy than the person expressing the emotional preference.

If you wish to engage in a political discussion and do not want to offer a source as a point of pride, then I think others are free to ignore what you are saying as being irrelevant if it is opposed by a sourced comment.

Very strange discussion for me. This discussion is a bit like: "Why do we need to back up our statements with some sort of evidence? Why can we not just be believed for what we are saying even when we are citing things that are supposedly objectively true like historical facts?" Under this way of doing things a person could just state the earth is flat and expect everyone else to believe them.

The following users say thanks to Phoenix9061210 for this post:

Glenn
Avatar
Nymzie
Zodiac
Members
Forum Posts: 2837
Member Since:
Saturday, August 25, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
78
Friday, August 11, 2017 - 8:39 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Teresina and I posted sources. The source you posted about Transgender people was from a man who claimed the world would end in 1997 (1997 - Self-professed Son of God and TV sports presenter David Icke decides the world will end in 1997, following the usual earthquakes and floods. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci.....401904.stm) and believes that the Royal Family are shape-shifting reptiles. And the source for that is his own website :/ - https://www.davidicke.com/category/271/reptilian-agenda

You think it's wrong that people believe Darwinism is a fact, but you bring up that the bones found could be extra-terrestrial. 

This is probably why many of the people you debate with online don't post sources for you. Your beliefs are so out of the realm of what most people see as reality that it's hard to believe you could look at a source we deem realistic and actually believe it. It's not that you're right-wing, it's that you're proudly a conspiracy theorist and people don't like arguing with conspiracy theorists because it seems useless to us. 

The following users say thanks to Nymzie for this post:

Glenn
Avatar
Phoenix9061210
Planetary ruler
Limited Access

Members
Forum Posts: 250
Member Since:
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
79
Friday, August 11, 2017 - 9:38 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Nymzie said
Teresina and I posted sources. The source you posted about Transgender people was from a man who claimed the world would end in 1997 (1997 - Self-professed Son of God and TV sports presenter David Icke decides the world will end in 1997, following the usual earthquakes and floods. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci.....401904.stm) and believes that the Royal Family are shape-shifting reptiles. And the source for that is his own website :/ - https://www.davidicke.com/category/271/reptilian-agenda

You think it's wrong that people believe Darwinism is a fact, but you bring up that the bones found could be extra-terrestrial. 

This is probably why many of the people you debate with online don't post sources for you. Your beliefs are so out of the realm of what most people see as reality that it's hard to believe you could look at a source we deem realistic and actually believe it. It's not that you're right-wing, it's that you're proudly a conspiracy theorist and people don't like arguing with conspiracy theorists because it seems useless to us.   

True it originally came from David Icke who posted from another source; the source I then posted and people still continued to argue against was the BBC... It was a direct quote on the subject from someone who would know about it.

I maintain definitively that Darwinism is not scientific fact. You are just stating otherwise. It will not be long before there is proof of the elongated skull thing (which is officially explained by 'head binding', do you believe that): 

YouTube: Gaia: SPECIAL REPORT: UNEARTHING NAZCA | Only on Gaia.com!

Teresina provided a source unrelated to my point. 

Yes, your source was relevant, however, it does not mitigate what I said. If children were previously not bringing up transgender issues until they have been told about it day in and day out, it is probably brainwashing, and child abuse. Explaining away a childs not bringing this up by saying there is discrimination against it is definitely not proof, just another statement, we have no idea if the children would know what is or isn't socially acceptable. They're children! 

There is far more likelihood that it is the result of brainwashing because we can clearly see a correlation. More "classes" etc. on transgender, more children thinking they are transgender. Children are easy to convince of anything.

The following users say thanks to Phoenix9061210 for this post:

Glenn, strawb.
Avatar
Phoenix9061210
Planetary ruler
Limited Access

Members
Forum Posts: 250
Member Since:
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
80
Friday, August 11, 2017 - 9:39 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Nymzie said
Teresina and I posted sources. The source you posted about Transgender people was from a man who claimed the world would end in 1997 (1997 - Self-professed Son of God and TV sports presenter David Icke decides the world will end in 1997, following the usual earthquakes and floods. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci.....401904.stm) and believes that the Royal Family are shape-shifting reptiles. And the source for that is his own website :/ - https://www.davidicke.com/category/271/reptilian-agenda

You think it's wrong that people believe Darwinism is a fact, but you bring up that the bones found could be extra-terrestrial. 

This is probably why many of the people you debate with online don't post sources for you. Your beliefs are so out of the realm of what most people see as reality that it's hard to believe you could look at a source we deem realistic and actually believe it. It's not that you're right-wing, it's that you're proudly a conspiracy theorist and people don't like arguing with conspiracy theorists because it seems useless to us.   

Well I did provide a complete answer against this but it is being 'moderated' I don't know why.

The following users say thanks to Phoenix9061210 for this post:

Glenn
Avatar
Elsa
Planets in shy.
Admin
Forum Posts: 27915
Member Since:
Monday, January 31, 2005
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
81
Friday, August 11, 2017 - 9:55 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

The moderation is because of the links (I think). This is because Nymzie's post was also moderated. Otherwise it might be your ip.

The filter is hosted off site. It decides what's "spam" Usually, it's pretty good. But not always!

When a post goes to moderation, I have to manually put it through. I am generally quick but if I am away from the computer (or asleep) there can be a delay.

The following users say thanks to Elsa for this post:

Phoenix9061210, Glenn
Avatar
Glenn
Rural Illinois
Galaxy
Limited Access

Members
Forum Posts: 4576
Member Since:
Friday, May 28, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
82
Saturday, August 12, 2017 - 3:12 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

MagicZara said

Huh? Can you clarify?   

California and Illinois both are controlled by the Democrat(ic) Party...... for decades. Thus it is easy to see the Fiscal condition wrecked by their policies. I suspect the members of a Pre-1960 Democrat(ic) Party would  NOT  recognize nor be allowed membership into Today's Party. If Ronald Reagan left this previous version of Democrat(ic) Party...... because it had "moved away from my political viewpoints"...... how much more would similar "Ronald Reagans" would be ousted by Today's Democrat(ic) Party?

Now to compare this to Today's Congress.

Do you remember how the Democrat(ic) Party treats the Pentagon? If it isn't cutting the Defense Budget, it's using it for Social experimentation ((women in combat, gays openly serving, "undocumented Immigrants" in US uniform, retaining sub-performing service members)).

The national branch of the Democrat(ic) Party knows how to weld power. We are seeing it Today. Even though it is "out of power positions" ((aka: not in control of any branch of US Government [Congress and President] )) it has succeeded in preventing the "opposition party" from accomplishing any of it's goals. Furthermore, it makes sure none of its current members votes against the wishes of the Democratic Leadership. The Republican Leadership does  NOT  have this same level of control *yet*.

Anyone seen the "Blue Dog Democrat" of 1980's?? Can't find them, except at Local level. Why? Because when they win office at the State or National level...... their viewpoints / voting record mirrors what the national leadership wants. If  THIS  isn't Total Control / Imperialism, then I don't know what is.

*****

Your main point is about US Imperialism abroad..... as your viewpoint (it seems) is align with certain "US is the World Bully" and therefore it must be reigned in.

My point is this...... the National Leadership of the Democrat(ic) Party enforces Imperialism within it's own ranks. Then when it gets Total Control of the US Government ((aka: President and Congress))..... it ruthlessly forces our Allies to bend to its Will.

Example: Israel. Can anyone say (with a straight face) that during Obama's Presidency Israel was treated same / better than the previous Administration? How about the "traditional enemies" of America: were they treated same as the previous Administration?

Then there's other matters worldwide. The previous 2-Democrat(ic) Presidents started wars while claiming they weren't wars. Kosovo.... Libya.... Syria.... just to name a few. These are same actions they claim the Republican Party as being "war mongers" and "Imperialist".

*****

I say the national leadership of the Democrat(ic) Party acts more of a dictator than the Republican Party. But I'll admit..... the current leadership of the national Republican Party certainly is starting to follow the Democrat(ic) lead.

The following users say thanks to Glenn for this post:

JoFrance
Avatar
Glenn
Rural Illinois
Galaxy
Limited Access

Members
Forum Posts: 4576
Member Since:
Friday, May 28, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
83
Saturday, August 12, 2017 - 3:41 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Phoenix9061210 said

Classic left, you being condescending because someone met your "feelings" with "facts".  

MagicZara said

Stop it. This is disrespectful.

I am very much on the left, far to the left of the Dem party, and speaking for myself only I don't make argument after argument devoid of logic or facts. I could point out where you have made arguments that don't wash with the truth if you'd like, but I'm not going to do that unless you push me.

On this thread you are being not only abusive, but a hypocrite as well. I'll report you if you don't knock it off.

*waits to be called a "snowflake"*  

I am hard pressed to see how Phoenix has been disrespectful in saying this.

Really? Now if Phoenix said (wrote) something like: "Classic Left: you being complete A-holes and mental midgets..... every one of you.".....  THEN  you'd have a valid point.

Personally...... I do find a few people on this Board who argue with "feelings" rather than with "facts". I am one of them (at times). These people I can tell have never experienced "the real world". Military service would be an eye-opener for them. Peace Corps would be a close second ((as far as direct exposure to a foreign culture))...... serving in the French Foreign Legion would be a better example.

The following users say thanks to Glenn for this post:

strawb.
Avatar
anonymoushermit
SuperStar
Limited Access

Members
Forum Posts: 1960
Member Since:
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
84
Saturday, August 12, 2017 - 3:46 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Pluto in Sagittarius is rebelling against political correctness. Generation Z.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/#318efc047878

The following users say thanks to anonymoushermit for this post:

strawb.
Avatar
Sherry
Planetary ruler
Limited Access
Forum Posts: 262
Member Since:
Monday, December 20, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
85
Saturday, August 12, 2017 - 10:37 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

Phoenix9061210 said

So, in relation to the last response. The dictionary definition of condescend is:

"having or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority"

And the dictionary definition of patronize is:

"treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority"

OK, lets go through this post then... 'Make some inexpensive sandwiches and give them out to the homeless'.

'Instead of letting the silly media get your goat, relinquish your ire with love and compassion for your fellow man.'

I don't think I need to go through this in great depth because every line is condescending.

One who was not 'treating with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority' would perhaps have assumed that I am able to make my own decisions about the media I "consume" for instance, and would not have used this sort of talking to attempt to deflect from a legitimate point that goes against their argument.  

If you are still upset with my completely legitimate and
rational yet kind responses and posts regarding this
subject, than something is seriously wrong with you
and your personality. My suspicion is that you are
not welcomed in many social circles because of your
inflammatory nature and bombastic attitude. I have
said nothing wrong and this attitude you take with my
posts is due to the FACT that you have a family situation
that you are extremely upset about. You have decided
take my words and psychologically paste them onto a
proverbial dart board. No wonder you spend so much
time here posting your angst. Nobody including your
own mother wants to hear about it in your social circle.

Now this post you can take as condescending. 100%.

Avatar
Phoenix9061210
Planetary ruler
Limited Access

Members
Forum Posts: 250
Member Since:
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
86
Sunday, August 13, 2017 - 2:33 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

Sherry said

If you are still upset with my completely legitimate and
rational yet kind responses and posts regarding this
subject, than something is seriously wrong with you
and your personality. My suspicion is that you are
not welcomed in many social circles because of your
inflammatory nature and bombastic attitude. I have
said nothing wrong and this attitude you take with my
posts is due to the FACT that you have a family situation
that you are extremely upset about. You have decided
take my words and psychologically paste them onto a
proverbial dart board. No wonder you spend so much
time here posting your angst. Nobody including your
own mother wants to hear about it in your social circle.

Now this post you can take as condescending. 100%.  

Thankyou Sherry!

It's nice to finally meet you.

Avatar
sunnyP
Pisces Sun/Jup, Scorpio Moon, Aquarius Venus, Leo Mars
SuperStar
Limited Access
Forum Posts: 1823
Member Since:
Monday, March 28, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
87
Sunday, August 13, 2017 - 11:27 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

^^^ that's a troll response

Avatar
Phoenix9061210
Planetary ruler
Limited Access

Members
Forum Posts: 250
Member Since:
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
88
Monday, August 14, 2017 - 1:52 am
sp_Permalink sp_Print sp_EditHistory

sunnyP said
^^^ that's a troll response  

If someone sources and explain facts clearly, another person tries to get out of having to look at the facts by being condescending, you call them out on it by actually quoting the dictionary, and then they try and personally attack you, would you respond to such people with kindness and a full response?

Giving as emotionally little as possible is the best solution to such an individual I think, and there is a small element of truth to it. Her 'holier than thou' attitude had the mask of kindness to it a few posts back, but now that mask has come down and it's just 'I don't like you' (from her). I would prefer that honesty to 'I am superior to you and you should think as I do, and thank me for it'.

Avatar
JoFrance
Constellation
Members
Forum Posts: 2020
Member Since:
Friday, November 1, 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
89
Monday, August 14, 2017 - 5:59 pm
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Glenn said

MagicZara said

Huh? Can you clarify?   

California and Illinois both are controlled by the Democrat(ic) Party...... for decades. Thus it is easy to see the Fiscal condition wrecked by their policies. I suspect the members of a Pre-1960 Democrat(ic) Party would  NOT  recognize nor be allowed membership into Today's Party. If Ronald Reagan left this previous version of Democrat(ic) Party...... because it had "moved away from my political viewpoints"...... how much more would similar "Ronald Reagans" would be ousted by Today's Democrat(ic) Party?

Now to compare this to Today's Congress.

Do you remember how the Democrat(ic) Party treats the Pentagon? If it isn't cutting the Defense Budget, it's using it for Social experimentation ((women in combat, gays openly serving, "undocumented Immigrants" in US uniform, retaining sub-performing service members)).

The national branch of the Democrat(ic) Party knows how to weld power. We are seeing it Today. Even though it is "out of power positions" ((aka: not in control of any branch of US Government [Congress and President] )) it has succeeded in preventing the "opposition party" from accomplishing any of it's goals. Furthermore, it makes sure none of its current members votes against the wishes of the Democratic Leadership. The Republican Leadership does  NOT  have this same level of control *yet*.

Anyone seen the "Blue Dog Democrat" of 1980's?? Can't find them, except at Local level. Why? Because when they win office at the State or National level...... their viewpoints / voting record mirrors what the national leadership wants. If  THIS  isn't Total Control / Imperialism, then I don't know what is.

*****

Your main point is about US Imperialism abroad..... as your viewpoint (it seems) is align with certain "US is the World Bully" and therefore it must be reigned in.

My point is this...... the National Leadership of the Democrat(ic) Party enforces Imperialism within it's own ranks. Then when it gets Total Control of the US Government ((aka: President and Congress))..... it ruthlessly forces our Allies to bend to its Will.

Example: Israel. Can anyone say (with a straight face) that during Obama's Presidency Israel was treated same / better than the previous Administration? How about the "traditional enemies" of America: were they treated same as the previous Administration?

Then there's other matters worldwide. The previous 2-Democrat(ic) Presidents started wars while claiming they weren't wars. Kosovo.... Libya.... Syria.... just to name a few. These are same actions they claim the Republican Party as being "war mongers" and "Imperialist".

*****

I say the national leadership of the Democrat(ic) Party acts more of a dictator than the Republican Party. But I'll admit..... the current leadership of the national Republican Party certainly is starting to follow the Democrat(ic) lead.  

The Democrat party today has moved so far left it is unrecognizable from what it was in say Kennedy's time (early '60s).  It was the party of the working class back then, but today it has evolved to become a Socialist party with an upper class and a permanent under class .  The Blue Dog Democrats used to be fiscally conservative, but today's Democrat party is just fiscally irresponsible.  Any state or city controlled by Democrats is a fiscal mess, as you know Glenn .  The "Blue Dog" Democrats have no power in today's Democrat party.

The Democrats do know how to wield power.  They all walk in lockstep and follow the party leadership, whether they like it or not. Republicans don't do that and that's why they never get anything done.  The Obamacare repeal and replace is a good example of the Republican party disunity.

I wouldn't go so far as to call either of our two parties imperialistic or dictatorial.  We do have checks and balances to prevent that.  I thought Obama was a feckless leader and Bush got carried away when he invaded Iraq.  So far, Trump is really pressuring Republicans to help pass his agenda and he has made a strong impression on the world stage.  I think that's a good thing because the US has been taken advantage of for a long time, especially economically.  That doesn't make him a dictator either.  A dictator is President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela.

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 196

Currently Online: macateta
46 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Newest Members:

ursula

henni

dobhranbeag

Asalinas

Gina64

alyscia2012

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 12

Topics: 18180

Posts: 254552

 

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 427

Members: 2881

Moderators: 0

Admins: 4

Administrators: Elsa, Jilly, Satori, Brandon C