farmerman wrote:I see youre beginning to see some light. Ill not discourage attempts at actual knowledge. Carry on.
As I've said in numerous threads here...
Until you Americans stop seeing things like universal health care and welfare as "socialism", then it's not likely much, if anything, will change in your country.
Until you Americans stop seeing equality as "socialism", not much is likely to change.
Until everyone, regardless of race, income, etc have the *same* access to things like education, employment, health care, etc, not much is likely to change.
So I'm not going to hold my breath...
maxdancona wrote:Oralloy, I am expressing my opinion in this post. I am not asserting any facts, so there is nothing here to argue. I am just telling you how I feel.
I have no obligation to interact with you in any way. If I choose to respond to a post, it is because either I have point to make I consider valid, or because you say something interesting (in this case, it is the former).
In my opinion, you are not worth engaging in any serious way. The reason for this is that in my opinionyou are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.
In my opinion, it is annoying when you make outrageous claims, and then you just keep repeating "It's fact" "It's fact" "It's fact" "You can't disprove it" "you can't disprove it" "you can't disprove it" "it's fact" "everything I say is fact". You are not making any real argument, and you are as boring as hell.
In my opinion, it is especially annoying when you tell me what I am thinking, and then disagree with me about my own thoughts when I tell you you a wrong. Your claim to be able to read minds is so ridiculous that it makes it impossible to take you seriously.
In my opinion, it will be worthwhile to engage with you seriously (rather than this nonsense) when
1. You stop mindreading and start listening when people tell you what they actually believe.
2. You can (in my opinion) accept facts even when (in my opinion) they conflict with your ideological narrative.
I will engage with you serious when, in my opinion, I feel like there is a point. Until then, I consider your far right-wing, ideological bluster to be (in my opinion) completely with merit.
When I don't respond to something, it is because I don't see any reason to.
While granted, what you say is absolutely true... you are the last person here that should be taking any moral high ground. Particularly when almost (if not) exactly the same things can also be said about yourself.
So how about you take your own advice there maxdancona? And assuming it's
not a foreign concept to you; try thinking about what I've said beyond the lens of just an insult and try to understand why not only myself, but many others here think you are nothing but a complete hypocrite... if you dare of course.
McGentrix,
You are absolutely spot on in everything you've said, nice posts from you. Glad someone here "gets it", spot on once again!
However, I have a question about the quoted part of one of your posts below;
McGentrix wrote:SWAT teams have changed over the last 50 years and todays SWAT teams should be separated from the city police force. They should be trained differently and held to a different standard than a police officer.
Are you saying that what you would call a "SWAT team" in America should be a
separate unit within said police force, or are you saying that the SWAT team should be a
separate government agency altogether?
And at least in Australia, what you call a "SWAT team" are trained to a much higher level and are held to higher standards than a "regular police officer" (but you are spot on all the same once again).
PS: I apologize if I've judged you too harshly in previous replies to you in other threads.
