Despised to be an American.

[K e r b e r o s]

I'm sorry, but I just didn't understand what you said right there.

In better words, I was saying you did'nt need to overestimate or passive-aggressively insult me. Heres where you did:

(1.) You're really not much better when it comes to your feelings of superiority.

(2.) Way to take things out of context and make a mountain from a mole hill.

Here where I debunk them, and I still feel my positions have gotten accross to you:

(Answer to 1.) I have'nt admitted or pressed for superiority. You seem to believe every attempt of me trying to get you calmed and /endranting is just my way of undermining your logic or attacking you.

I cant find the correct way to diffuse your second point, as it was a little far-fetched for an answer. I wanted cooperation, in that we could share our points without undermining each other with: "You're really not much better", or "Way to make a mountain out of a mole hill".

But without provokation, you decided that my disagreeance was one to throw away. Fine. I'll attempt again this time to convey my points.

My friend, if I said "America is full of a bunch of dumb shits", then that would be insulting. When I use words like "gullible", I use them with them with their definitions in mind. If you find an insulting connotation, then that's something on your end. Not mine.

The term you use, gullible, is put into a tense thats still very lucradiv and suggesting. You never did change the sentence, or leave for the plausibility of another.

Instead, you left us to believe "America is full of gullible shits", or "dumb gullibles". Heres my quam: You said if we were insulted, it would be on our end, and to this end and many others, we are insulted because we know many people who are infact different.

Of being an American yourself, you should know people that are'nt gullible or shits to begin with. Which is where I dont understand, that if its not your opinion, one has to be over specific in order to explain something to your style of understanding. Whilst, when you convey something, you just expect us not to be insulted, and take every word of yours like its treature.

Well, some of us dont, and I have to say I for one think its wrong you'd expect something out of us, you dont give in return.

And your idea of "helping" the situation includes everybody joining hands and working together to make a stronger America.

Seinfeld was hoping you would'nt be such a push-away when it comes down to countrywide cooperation. This does'nt mean support Bush, but it does mean civil discussion. His advisories flew right over your head.

Re-read them. They have nothing to do with Bush.

While nice, you don't seem to realize that "joining hands" actually means "just learning to accept Bush".

He meant to cooperate in for finding a solution. You said, you were willing, but only until Bush started loosing what makes him Bush. We were willing, but only until you stopped being so self-witted and realize conservative and liberal alike, are waiting for more people like you, to help our country.

But your just sitting there, and while you can say your actually doing something, because of your past throw-aways towards us we wont believe you until we "See you".

That sort of passive attitude of "Oh well" is a dangerous one and is actually what discourages any change. So excuse me if I disagree with you on that one, buddy.

I think you put up a nice "Oh well" attitude, to Seinfelds point of maintaining civil discussion.

You cant exactly argue that you are being civil, when you insult both him and me, passive-aggressively. Your not being a very good civil mediator, when your not willing to listen or accept people's viewpoints.

Its even worse for you, when your not willing to cooperate in finding solutions. Thats being selfish.

Two gay men not having the right to wed

vs.

14,000 deaths.

Please tell me which one is the bigger tragedy.

Its relative to your belief.

I believe both are tragedies. Seinfeld, what do you believe?

But the fact of the matter is that most Bush supporters are ignorant and gullible.

This is the generalization I was talking about. You dont speak for a majority of these people, and you dont know them all personally. You only credit this, gullible behavior with them, because its your own political spin after having your own party lost.

If your going to be a sore looser, so be it. I wont play in your field anymore, I've got my own.

I have my opinions of people. I speak them out.

So do we. Dont be suprised.

 

[Absinthe]

I have'nt admitted or pressed for superiority. You seem to believe every attempt of me trying to get you calmed and /endranting is just my way of undermining your logic or attacking you.

I have done no insulting. Well, I did insult Disturbed, but that was initiated by him. And when it comes to passive-aggressiveness, you are just as guilty. Right after my FIRST reply to you, I was greeted with this.

I think the original thread author intended for us to debate or discuss why or why not its for us, in this country. Since you've admitted your not one for facts, as you've again, generalized over some nice people out there as qualitative drivel, I cant say I'll waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

Your points are now not taken. I cant say I'd bother much with you any further.

Hostile? I would think so.

I cant find the correct way to diffuse your second point, as it was a little far-fetched for an answer. I wanted cooperation, in that we could share our points without undermining each other with: "You're really not much better", or "Way to make a mountain out of a mole hill".

But without provokation, you decided that my disagreeance was one to throw away. Fine. I'll attempt again this time to convey my points.

Cooperation, is it? Sorry, but I didn't realize that one gains cooperation with an attitude that says "You're not worth my effort". Without provocation? You certainly came off as provoking to me.

So much for debunking.

The term you use, gullible, is put into a tense thats still very lucradiv and suggesting. You never did change the sentence, or leave for the plausibility of another.

Instead, you left us to believe "America is full of gullible shits", or "dumb gullibles". Heres my quam: You said if we were insulted, it would be on our end, and to this end and many others, we are insulted because we know many people who are infact different.

Of being an American yourself, you should know people that are'nt gullible or shits to begin with. Which is where I dont understand, that if its not your opinion, one has to be over specific in order to explain something to your style of understanding. Whilst, when you convey something, you just expect us not to be insulted, and take every word of yours like its treature.

Kerberos, be my guest and attempt to investigate what I did say, what I didn't say, and what I might have implied with my words. I know what I meant. Furthermore, I've already explained myself on this issue.

Well, some of us dont, and I have to say I for one think its wrong you'd expect something out of us, you dont give in return.

I don't know what that would be. I don't expect anything from you people.

Seinfeld was hoping you would'nt be such a push-away when it comes down to countrywide cooperation. This does'nt mean support Bush, but it does mean civil discussion. His advisories flew right over your head.

Again, I've already explained my position on this.

If seinfeld was such an advocate for civil discussion... I'm not going to get into it. First reply he gave to me was on Page 9, and it was an insinuation of arrogance.

So much for civil discussion.

Re-read them. They have nothing to do with Bush.

No. You are being unpatriotic by calling us a country of fools. It is ok to disagree in a civil manner. You dont do that. You would rather insult then actually help the situation.

In the context of his sentence, it has everythint to do with Bush.

He meant to cooperate in for finding a solution. You said, you were willing, but only until Bush started loosing what makes him Bush. We were willing, but only until you stopped being so self-witted and realize conservative and liberal alike, are waiting for more people like you, to help our country.

I've already shared my opinion of what "helping" would be. Again, no comment.

You say I want Bush to lose the qualities that make him Bush. Well, of course I do. I don't like what he's done with the country. I think a little less Bush would be effin' great.
There's always a bad side to a politician, because no politician is perfect for everybody. That's why we disagree with some of what they do and believe. You're not really making much of an argument. I want Bush to change. So sue me.

Kerberos, all you're doing is making me repeat myself. I'm wondering where you're actually going with this.

But your just sitting there, and while you can say your actually doing something, because of your past throw-aways towards us we wont believe you until we "See you".

Then I guess you'll never believe me, seeing as how it's somewhat difficult to produce tangible results through a keyboard and a monitor. If what you're asking for is proof of a contribution, then you must surely realize that it's a thing that can't be conveyed online.

I think you put up a nice "Oh well" attitude, to Seinfelds point of maintaining civil discussion.

There was no civil discussion to begin with. At least not between him and I. Again, you aren't making any point.

You cant exactly argue that you are being civil, when you insult both him and me, passive-aggressively.

Irony.

Your not being a very good civil mediator, when your not willing to listen or accept people's viewpoints.

I listen. I disagree. Voila.

Its even worse for you, when your not willing to cooperate in finding solutions. Thats being selfish.

There was no attempt at a solution, Kerberos. You jumped into a nonexistent point in the middle of your arguments with me.

Its relative to your belief.

I believe both are tragedies. Seinfeld, what do you believe?

I recognize this as being relative to one's belief. But I personally find it shocking that the love between two men is somehow on par or even worse than the killing of innocent civilians.

This is the generalization I was talking about. You dont speak for a majority of these people, and you dont know them all personally. You only credit this, gullible behavior with them, because its your own political spin after having your own party lost.

If your going to be a sore looser, so be it. I wont play in your field anymore, I've got my own.

Whatever, Kerb. You can argue with statistics all you like. I won't stop you.

So do we. Dont be suprised.

What surprise? Kerberos, if you're trying to imply that I'm hypocritical in some way, then I'm sorry to say that you've failed miserably at it. I've expected nothing of anybody in this topic.

If you want to get into a semantical argument with me, allow me to preemptively back out. And if you wish to continue this, try not to load up your posts with assumptions and innacuracies.

ADDED: Sleep time. I personally have no interest in wading through another Bible-length post. If you really want cooperation from me, Kerberos, then please make your next post short and succinct, seeing as how your unnecessarily long post just came off to me as antagonizing.

Note how I didn't give any terms for cooperation this time around.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

If you want to get into a semantical argument with me, allow me to preemptively back out. And if you wish to continue this, try not to load up your posts with assumptions and innacuracies.

If you want to continue this, I'd advise the same for you. You cant dodge it by calling me on it first. Your equally guilty.

Hostile? I would think so.

If you find that connotation insulting, thats just on your end.

Cooperation, is it? Sorry, but I didn't realize that one gains cooperation with an attitude that says "You're not worth my effort".

Well, I still cant believe im pressing for your attitude to change, but your still not worth my effort. See, why you were'nt my effort then, is because you were being a smartass on how people should accept your viewpoints. You already made it apparent this discussion is your own personal gain.

Kerberos, be my guest and attempt to investigate what I did say, what I didn't say, and what I might have implied with my words. I know what I meant. Furthermore, I've already explained myself on this issue.

Much the same, I think Seinfeld knows what he meant--I also know what I meant. I've explained myself on this issue, too. Infact, first before you.

I don't know what that would be. I don't expect anything from you people.

I know what that would be. People to fall over and accept your opinion, or become so offended by it they post a "OMFG WALL HAX" post.

Glad you posted your original thought, but this topic already has you on alarm. Wish you could calm down really, because I really dont understand where your coming from on all of these points you made...

There was no civil discussion to begin with. At least not between him and I. Again, you aren't making any point.

There was Civil Discussion. It also, happens to be a moderators request. I think I made my point, and you proved it when you were unwilling to cooperate, and unwilling to understand what Seinfeld was trying to get at.

Your not making any point here at all, because your dodging trying to make up to him, because you'd feel that could be your loss.

Im not keeping score here--you can at least try to acknowledge what he's trying to say, or go read what the moderator posted.

I listen. I disagree. Voila.

I listened. I disagreed. You nitpicked me. Voila.

There was no attempt at a solution, Kerberos. You jumped into a nonexistent point in the middle of your arguments with me.

Again, this point went right over your head. Not suprising.

But I personally find it shocking that the love between two men is somehow on par or even worse than the killing of innocent civilians.

Judging from your response, I made a point you could reply too.

Whatever, Kerb. You can argue with statistics all you like. I won't stop you.

Good, because I think I did prior. Next time, you should'nt just "assume" for your own gains. It gets people annoyed, and I think that was your goal.

So do we. Dont be suprised.

Was my response to you, in that you should expect the same behavior you do unto us, to happen to you.

I dont care if you accept the points I made or not, I just wanted to post something so that at least you knew where people might disagree with you.

If your not fine with that, then yes, I'am accusing you of being hyprocritical, because you expect us to just take your opinion "hard-ass" style. Whilst you, cant handle our opinions, and immediately roll into the defensive.

:thumbs:

I congradulate you, for making this an all-out war of tid-for-tad! Anything else you'd like to compare? Anything else you'd like to say?

Because im going to say this much as I leave "your" part of the discussion...I wont say anything further to you. Now yours chance to lay down the law.

 

[Absinthe]

If you want to continue this, I'd advise the same for you. You cant dodge it by calling me on it first. Your equally guilty.

You actually called it on me first.

But seeing as how we're both apparently guilty of this, I'd say that there's no reason to assume either of us has higher ground.

If you find that connotation insulting, thats just on your end.

Touche.

Well, I still cant believe im pressing for your attitude to change, but your still not worth my effort. See, why you were'nt my effort then, is because you were being a smartass on how people should accept your viewpoints. You already made it apparent this discussion is your own personal gain.

I didn't push for anybody to accept my viewpoints. That's another assumption on your part. And just because it's for my own personal gain (ie. my entertainment) doesn't mean that I can't get something else out of it. I'm still susceptible to being convinced. That's why I initially supported the war, but no longer do.

Much the same, I think Seinfeld knows what he meant--I also know what I meant. I've explained myself on this issue, too. Infact, first before you.

I fail to see how who did what first on this aspect is of any importance.

I'm willing to accept that the reason we're having this argument right now is due to clarity of language. But I'm not going to sit here and let you accuse me of being the only guilty party.

I know what that would be. People to fall over and accept your opinion, or become so offended by it they post a "OMFG WALL HAX" post.

Another assumption.

Glad you posted your original thought, but this topic already has you on alarm. Wish you could calm down really, because I really dont understand where your coming from on all of these points you made...

Which points? I'd be happy to clarify.

There was Civil Discussion. It also, happens to be a moderators request. I think I made my point, and you proved it when you were unwilling to cooperate, and unwilling to understand what Seinfeld was trying to get at.

Bollocks. The pressure for cooperation came after our spat. And I am not unwilling to understand what seinfeld was trying to get at. I'm not that pigheaded. If he intended something different with his posts, then he wasn't specific enough.

Your not making any point here at all, because your dodging trying to make up to him, because you'd feel that could be your loss.

My point was that you can't only accuse me of something that he was also involved in. I see you defending a lot of what he has said. But until he comes in here and confirms it, I don't see the need to make it up to him at all.

Im not keeping score here--you can at least try to acknowledge what he's trying to say, or go read what the moderator posted.

Again, you assume I'm ignoring the intention of his posts. Not the case at all.

A) I interpreted his posts correctly and took appropriate action.

B) He was unclear in his posts. His bad.

C) I misunderstood him. My bad.

I await his input on this matter.

I listened. I disagreed. You nitpicked me. Voila.

Nitpicked you? Pot. Kettle. Black.

Again, this point went right over your head. Not suprising.

Then please, explain it to me instead of resorting to your usual condescendence. How's that for dodging?

Good, because I think I did prior. Next time, you should'nt just "assume" for your own gains. It gets people annoyed, and I think that was your goal.

1) Prior to what? I don't recall you doing this at all?

2) There was no assumption. I read the numbers and based my opinion from it.

If you think that my sole intention was to annoy people, then you're wrong again. You accuse me of assuming when your previous couple of posts have done nothing but that.

Was my response to you, in that you should expect the same behavior you do unto us, to happen to you.

Do you see me crying about this? Somebody replies to me in a fashion similar to my own. Big whoop. I'm not scratched. Nor am I shocked.

I dont care if you accept the points I made or not, I just wanted to post something so that at least you knew where people might disagree with you.

If your not fine with that, then yes, I'am accusing you of being hyprocritical, because you expect us to just take your opinion "hard-ass" style. Whilst you, cant handle our opinions, and immediately roll into the defensive.

Again, expectations. I do not aim to convince people. I've posted my thoughts and I've argued them. Wether people choose to accept or reject them is completely up to them. I couldn't care.

I congradulate you, for making this an all-out war of tid-for-tad! Anything else you'd like to compare? Anything else you'd like to say?

Only that you're very selective in who you paint as the sole perpetrator of this "war". There's more than one side involved in this. If you can't even accept this one thing, then I too don't believe we have anything to discuss from this point forward.

But hey, at least that's one thing we agree on.

 

[PeeWee]

Homer: Euro Trash? You are kidding, right? Seeing this thread I was coming in to see how things were still being blown out of proportion big time. But I feel kind of offended by that shit. I've lived and worked in the US for a year, have lived in an all american family (who are Bush fans, have always been and are republican of course) but I've not seen so much narrow-mindedness. Having a green card and actually having friends in the US I wonder how much you actually know about Europe? Been here for a week on vacation? Or have you lived in different countries (yes, Europe consists of more than one country) in Europe?

So Bush won. Big deal really. He's not the devil or something. And the majority of american voters have decided on him. That makes it a democratic vote in the US, not the world. Also the system is much larger than Bush alone so...

But can ppl like Homer shut up?

@Kerberos: being the dog guarding the river Hades, you should know that no country alone can live. There's import and export and unilateralism is not working in a globalised world.

"What do you guys have against Europe as a whole", I'd really like to know...

Id appreciate it if u said wut do "u" have not "u guys".