More EU Madness!

Tools    





Any of you a fan of the hero of Canton the man they call Jane? Well, he said: "If wishes were horses we'd all be eatin steak!"
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



I take it you're not a big fan of Churchill?

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
That’s an unusual source, a quote from a man who warned and warned against Germany and the Nazis from the political wilderness for years.

“Yet, the stubborn and tenacious eldest son of Lord Randolph Churchill was undaunted. He was truly a lone voice in the wilderness when he raised the alarm concerning German rearmament and the remarkable ascension to power of the charismatic Adolph Hitler.”

http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/2009/...ing-of-a-storm

It’s a pity, don't you think? Millions upon millions dead for want of heeding the warnings of such a “fanatic.”



That’s an unusual source, a quote from a man who warned and warned against Germany and the Nazis form the political wilderness for years.
It's not unusual at all. That's kinda the point: even someone who knew a thing or two about confronting threats to civilization understood the difference between resolve and fanaticism.

It’s a pity: Millions upon millions dead for want of heeding the warnings of such a “fanatic.”
Think of how many lives could've been saved if he'd just yelled about Nazis in front of the local theater every day.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
I don't see that analogy holding up.... I don't like comparing in general (different circumstances), and the Nazis controlled a very powerful country... I tend to see a lot of "apocalypse" talk out of hysteria, boredom, or a saturation of "news" - but never on actual issues that affect the community you live in.



Atheist showing up on Facebook feed is equal to terrorist attack ? Come on Yoda .



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I tend to see a lot of "apocalypse" talk out of hysteria, boredom, or a saturation of "news" - but never on actual issues that affect the community you live in.
Hear, Hear! Just a rock banging around in a tin can.



I don't see that analogy holding up.... I don't like comparing in general (different circumstances), and the Nazis controlled a very powerful country... I tend to see a lot of "apocalypse" talk out of hysteria, boredom, or a saturation of "news" - but never on actual issues that affect the community you live in.
What is it about the analogy you don’t understand? Churchill warned and warned about the danger of Nazi Germany and was ignored. Result? Entire cities razed to the ground; ethnic genocide, and 60 million dead. I’d say that affected local communities, wouldn’t you?



Hear, Hear! Just a rock banging around in a tin can.
Please see my recent answer to Matt. Thank you.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Please see my recent answer to Matt. Thank you.
I saw it. Still hearing a rock banging around in a tin can. As Powdered Water said, why don't you read Yoda's posts and try to understand what he's saying. It's a pretty simple concept he has. thank you.



Seeing how the Nazi's came up in this discussion...and we're quoting, then I have a poignant quote...

"Race hate isn't human nature; race hate is the abandonment of human nature." Orson Welles



I saw it. Still hearing a rock banging around in a tin can. As Powdered Water said, why don't you read Yoda's posts and try to understand what he's saying. It's a pretty simple concept he has. thank you.
Well, I must commend you on one point, at least. Whereas many others seem to take delight in saying absolutely nothing in myriad paragraphs, you are content to do so in but one. I do understand Chris’s points, but I disagree with them. (Do you think he only welcomes sycophants?) We both invoke the immortal Sir Winston Churchill for historical precedent, albeit it to opposing conclusions.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Well, I must commend you on one point, at least. Whereas many others seem to take delight in saying absolutely nothing in myriad paragraphs, you are content to do so in but one.

That's quite passive aggressive, Don. Much louder than a rock banging around in a tin can. My feels are hurtie.



That's quite passive aggressive, Don. Much louder than a rock banging around in a tin can. My feels are hurtie.
I was merely pointing out that you didn't address my point at all in your "retort." Instead, you simply accused me, in effect, of blustering. In argumentation, one needs to back up such a raw assertion. ("You're a bigot because....")



Atheist showing up on Facebook feed is equal to terrorist attack ? Come on Yoda .
Nope, but it doesn't have to be, because it's an analogy. And because saying God exists isn't equal to saying civilization is threatened and people who don't want to talk about it all the time are aiding and abetting terrorism, either.

It's an analogy that illustrates the other points in the same post, which were:

Why would you need to repeat every opinion with every attack? I think lots of things are bad, but I don't feel the need to reiterate my opinion every time I even encounter them, let alone just hear about one on the news.
People would tune me out and I wouldn't have accomplished anything.
But even if you do need such a place, one wonders why it should be here. You can say this stuff in a million places, many with the same insatiable appetite for discussing it. But obviously, that's not enough. Seems like what people really want is just to have their outrage seen and acknowledged, which means any place is as good as any other. But they can't say that, because it doesn't sound as noble as suggesting that this is really about trying to save civilization.

If these discussions were at all pragmatic, rather than just a compulsive expression of outrage, they would all look very different and probably be happening some place else.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I was merely pointing out that you didn't address my point at all in your "retort." Instead, you simply accused me, in effect, of blustering. In argumentation, one needs to back up such a raw assertion. ("You're a bigot because....")

What point was that? That people who dont think like you are oh so PC and have their head in the sand? The point I made was quite clear. Read Yoda's posts and let them sink in



In addition to that response to ash, and in simultaneous response to Don's comments, there seems to be a common misconception here: the idea that you can respond to any questions by just talking about how serious terrorism is.

Okay, terrorism is serious. Exactly how many of the nooks and crannies in life must it inhabit? Do we have to remind our kids of it when we tuck them in at night? Do we have to tell the cashier about it when they give us our change? Do we need to scrawl "if you see something, say something" inside birthday cards? No? Then you already agree in principle that the seriousness of the issue is not a de facto justification for talking about it wherever, however, whenever you feel the impulse to. Which means it isn't a response when I ask you what you hope to accomplish by compulsively posting about it here.



If someone really needs a subthread, of a movie forum no less, to stay informed about terrorist attacks or any global news for that matter, they should really reconsider their news sources. Although, it was never really about informing people was it?
__________________
“There's no place to hide, When you're lit from the inside” Roisin Murphy



If someone really needs a subthread, of a movie forum no less, to stay informed about terrorist attacks or any global news for that matter, they should really reconsider their news sources. Although, it was never really about informing people was it?
Oh, we’re all well informed about the news. That’s the problem. This is an opinion forum meant to share views and hopefully persuade.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
If someone really needs a subthread, of a movie forum no less, to stay informed about terrorist attacks or any global news for that matter, they should really reconsider their news sources. Although, it was never really about informing people was it?

Might help if they actually read the news, and not post one article to start a debate about something else.



What point was that? That people who dont think like you are oh so PC and have their head in the sand? The point I made was quite clear. Read Yoda's posts and let them sink in
No, the point was about Churchill as historical precedent. He had to battle folks like you and who argued much like you.