WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

“That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet.” Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2) ~ Shakespeare.

Shakespeare is suggesting there is more to a subject than its mere name. So when Hitler claimed he was a socialist, consider these examples which, unlike a “sweet rose,” reek of a different odor.

• Ost-Deutschland (AKA East Germany) was also called the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) AKA the German Democratic Republic (GDR); it wasn’t a democracy.

• The People’s Republic of China isn’t a republic.

• The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) (AKA North Korea) isn’t a democracy.

• The Soyuz Sovietskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (AKA The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: USSR) wasn’t a true republic.

Hitler's Nazi party was the National Socialist Workers Party....a socialist leftist political party. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler Originally Posted by herfacechair

“[T]he broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted . . . and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.” Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

Hitler was an inveterate liar. So, why give credence to his words now?

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole (Webster’s).

Even though the term Nazi derives from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP), Hitler’s Germany was not a leftist-socialist government. Its political ideology was far-right Fascism.

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (Webster’s).

Superimpose a 12 hour clock face on a Nolan Chart and you’ll find Stalinism marked at about the 6:35 to 6:40 position (on the lower left). Hitler’s Fascism would be marked at the 6:20 to 6:25 position (on the lower right). They are alike, but not the same. These two extremes are like the two ends of a belt. When the belt is unfastened, they appear to be quite far apart. Yet, when fastened together, they form a circle (like on a Nolan Chart) and appear quite close.

American author and philosopher Eric Hoffer wrote, in True Believer, that the rabid Nazi and the rabid Communist were more alike than different. He also wrote that they both were the antitheses of responsible individuals and that they could not live in a society that depended on personal choice such as in a democracy.

(Please note: I said “Stalinism” and did not say “communism.” Except in various religious communities, true communism has never existed. During the Russian Revolution, Lenin established the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the U.S.S.R., and this remained the rule until the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. in 1991. True communism never “evolved” as predicted by Marx.)

Ah, but JB, you can name anything you want. It is what it is, no matter the name.

In this case, I believe Fascism to be the extreme right wing of the political spectrum, while Communism is the extreme left wing. Both are nearly identical in the way they treat humans. And both are nearly equally abhorrent to those who love this country and other republics/democracies.

My earlier post merely object to the position that they were all left-wing wingnuts. Obviously there are some right wing wingnuts in there too. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

+1

Took me too long to write and post. You beat me to the punch.

Let's cut through all the crap. Governments, in the end, can be divided into two categories. Those that can line you against the wall and shoot you, and those that can't.
Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Stalinist Russia, Communist China, Facist Italy, Communist Cuba, most of sub Saharan Africa, Vietnam, and North Korea are just some examples of those that can, did, and will.

The USA does not.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler Originally Posted by herfacechair

Anyone who thinks Hitler was a Socialist proves they have not one clue about Hitler or Socialism or both. This may be confusing subject to some but it sure as hell isn't subjective.


“The NASDAP Party must not serve the masses, but rather dominate them.”
Mein Kampf, p.260

http://www.abelard.org/hitler/hitler.php#kubizek

Again, if we don't accomplish our strategic objectives, our financial/economic health won't matter. We'd have other things to worry about, like a radical version of Islamic Law that makes the Taliban's leadership look like a real democratic government being forced down our throats.

. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Bla Bla Bla.....and if we lose Vietnam, we will all become Commies. Same song second verse from you vast industrial military complex defenders. You may scare the women folks into footing your bills but as far as I'm concerned the only job I'm willing to pay for your type is a TSA screener. Perfect job for you. China is our biggest threat btw, not some backward thinking Muslims......and the American public footed your military education?

"Given the asymmetrical warfare that we're involved in, we have to be doing what we're doing right now to defeat the threat that intends to illuminate us as a culture, as a non Muslim people. Our failure to do what we're doing right now invites the enemy to succeed with their goal... establishing global Islamic law." -herfacechair

Again, considering that everything is at state, our economic health isn't going to matter if we're forced to bow down to Mecca 5 times a day, and forced to abide by a radical version of what the Taliban subjected Afghanistan to. Originally Posted by herfacechair

For someone who is infallible (at least in your own mind), you can't spell "eliminate" or "stake."

And you have not created a "debate" on this site, especially as you are the sole arbiter of who "wins" said debate. A debate anticipates a neutral arbiter, and you are hardly that.

"That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet." Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2) ~ Shakespeare.

Shakespeare is suggesting there is more to a subject than its mere name. So when Hitler claimed he was a socialist, consider these examples which, unlike a "sweet rose," reek of a different odor. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

There are many ways to interpret that, and there are many applications to it. You pointed out a concept that we use in direct mail copywriting. It's a process called "substantiation." This is like taking the bread and wine in a Sunday service, doing a ritual, and "presto," you have the flesh and blood of Jesus, not just a mere bread and wine. Your list is an example of transubstantiation, something that's used to "sell" an "idea" to the masses. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that Hitler had socialistic leanings.

• Ost-Deutschland (AKA East Germany) was also called the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) AKA the German Democratic Republic (GDR); it wasn't a democracy.

• The People's Republic of China isn't a republic.

• The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) (AKA North Korea) isn't a democracy.

• The Soyuz Sovietskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (AKA The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: USSR) wasn't a true republic.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

When many of these entities got started, they had to "sell an idea" to the masses to power their movement. Nobody would risk their lives, and property, to fight for a government that'd rule them with an iron fist. But, they'll fight for a cause they believe would improve their lots in the future. So, they'll fight for a "democratic" or "republic" form of government, one that'd represent the people's voice, rather than the substandard government they felt they had. This doesn't dismiss the fact that Hitler was on the left, and held leftist ideologies.

"[T]he broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted . . . and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation." Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It doesn't matter what party a person was from, or what party they're a part off, I've seen this comment, in one form or another, come out of the mouths of people from all political spectrums. Hitler, in his own way, was talking about trying to sell an idea to the masses.

Hankering: Hitler was an inveterate liar. So, why give credence to his words now?

He lied about many things, but he didn't lie about everything. The statement that I quoted about him was consistent with what I've read about him in the past.

Hankering: Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole (Webster's).

This definition shows itself in some of the NAZI's 25 points:

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

13. We demand the nationalization of all trusts.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large industries.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

19. We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.

Source:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...r/25points.htm

Even though the term Nazi derives from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP), Hitler's Germany was not a leftist-socialist government. Its political ideology was far-right Fascism.

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (Webster's). Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Not true. The right advocates less government and control of our activities, as well as less control of the free market. Any regime that demands more control of the populace, and its activities, goes counter to the right's philosophy. Fascism is the opposite of anything on the right. From Library of Economics and Liberty:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

"...fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax. In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie." - Library of Economics and Liberty

[QUOTE=I B Hankering;850009] Superimpose a 12 hour clock face on a Nolan Chart and you'll find Stalinism marked at about the 6:35 to 6:40 position (on the lower left). Hitler's Fascism would be marked at the 6:20 to 6:25 position (on the lower right). They are alike, but not the same. These two extremes are like the two ends of a belt. When the belt is unfastened, they appear to be quite far apart. Yet, when fastened together, they form a circle (like on a Nolan Chart) and appear quite close.

I've taken surveys, like the Nolan Chart Survey, and have seen where famous and infamous people landed on those charts. I don't take what they say about these third parties seriously. Where you land on the chart is based on what you input into the chart, based on your answers to the questions in the survey. Now, Hitler, Stalin, Ghandi, etc, were dead by the time the new version of these charts came out. None of those guys logged onto the internet, got onto the Nolan Chart Survey, and answered questions. None of these guys took these surveys to find out where they landed on any of these charts.

This is a case where we have two kinds of input. Someone's hopefully objective input on what their position is on the questions being asked, and someone's opinion on what the above, dead people, would've put, based on the inputter's opinions, views, and information sources covering the person that they're answering for.

Another issue with the Nolan Chart is the nature of the survey questions. There are lots of sections there where the choice that I want to make becomes "unattractive" due to deliberate inaccuracies, and emotion stirring, that the poll writer placed in there. These questions would get thrown out in a graduate polling class project.

Relying on the information contained in the Nolan Chart would be like referencing Wikipedea in a college research paper. Hitler's ideology was from the left.

Hankering: American author and philosopher Eric Hoffer wrote, in True Believer, that the rabid Nazi and the rabid Communist were more alike than different. He also wrote that they both were the antitheses of responsible individuals and that they could not live in a society that depended on personal choice such as in a democracy.

This matches the history that I've read on both parties. The communist party and NAZI parties were rivals on the same side of the political spectrum. As for a society that depended on personal choice, and the requirement for responsibility? Those are two things that the right pushes, personal choice and personal responsibility. Add accountability to that as well. Neither the NAZI's, nor the Communists, are compatible with a society that embraces things that the right embraces.

Hankering: (Please note: I said "Stalinism" and did not say "communism." Except in various religious communities, true communism has never existed. During the Russian Revolution, Lenin established the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in the U.S.S.R., and this remained the rule until the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. in 1991. True communism never "evolved" as predicted by Marx.)

This goes back to what I said earlier in this post, going back to your Shakespeare quote. The people that wanted power had to sell an idea to the masses. The masses liked the idea that everybody shares in the wealth, and that everybody shares in the power and decision making process. To get these people onboard, and to power their movement, they had to sell them the "big idea." But once the leaders took power, they adapted their own agenda, and exerted allot of power.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler Originally Posted by herfacechair

Anyone who thinks Hitler was a Socialist proves they have not one clue about Hitler or Socialism or both. This may be confusing subject to some but it sure as hell isn't subjective.


"The NASDAP Party must not serve the masses, but rather dominate them."
Mein Kampf, p.260

http://www.abelard.org/hitler/hitler.php#kubizek Originally Posted by WTF

The only area where you're right is that this isn't subjective. Unfortunately, you're basing your argument on revisionist history.

When I made my introductory post on this message board, I should've mentioned the fact that I'm a history buff... a fanatic of sorts. When most of you are clubbing and drinking, or watching sports, I'm watching the history channel or doing History related reading/research, in addition to doing other kinds of research. Heck, I argued about this issue back in 2004/2005, this exact argument, with your points, were made back then.

Hitler got his start with the German Workers' Party. His military seniors originally sent him there as part of a campaign to eradicate Marxism. Hitler had no problems with a speech made, where the speaker lambasted capitalism, and how it should be eliminated. After reading their literature, he liked the idea of having a party, consisting of workers, enforcing his own viewpoints.

Hitler understood the concept of selling the big idea to a target audience. He capitalized on many of the sticking points that bothered the German masses during those times. One of them was the conditions placed on Germany as a result of World War I. Another one was anti Semitism, where many blamed the Jews for Germany's plight. One big sticking point for the day involved "Evil Capitalism."

All of these were personal sticking points for Hitler, these were things that "kept him up at night." His attitude toward the rich capitalist is close to what the socialists and communists held. He spent time in poverty, lots of time in poverty.

Many erroneously assume that he was a right winger, and they erroneously assumed that fascism was a right wing philosophy. They're not. Even though Hitler harbored resentment toward the rich, and free market capitalism in general, he had his own aspirations of power and control over the country. His opposition to the Communist was more an opposition against a rival group that wanted power, as well as toward a rival group that screamed for followers, rather than one where he hated their ideology, one where he was on "the opposite" end of spectrum as they were.

Hitler's attitude of control over Germany, to include dictatorial powers, puts him opposite to the hard right wing, who want no control at all.

Charlestudor2005 is dead wrong with his definition of what constitutes the extreme right wing of the spectrum.

If you're looking at the extreme right wing of the spectrum, look to the Anarchists. Fascism is NOTHING of that sort.

I highly recommend that you know my interest/experience areas first before dismissing me as being "clueless" about what I'm talking about. There's a crapload of misinformation out there, especially when it comes to history. I see this misinformation come back to me via the people that I've debated with, including you. I've found, from talking to people, that the biggest misconception comes from those who just learned history in high school or college, with no additional, real back research.

WTF: Bla Bla Bla....

This is the most intelligent thing that you've said in this exchange.

WTF: .and if we lose Vietnam, we will all become Commies.

We won every major battle in Vietnam. Had the Republicans gotten their way, we would've had complete victory, with all of Vietnam being Democratic. But the Democrats pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.

What you're not factoring is the fact that Asia was unstable during that period, and was like a powder keg waiting to explode. The Russians and Chinese were fully ready to exploit weaknesses around the region, and to spread communism as quickly as possible. Our actions in Vietnam stopped them cold, forcing them to take "the easier route" to try to spread communism throughout Asia. In the long run, our actions in Vietnam stabilized Asia. This reduced the environment that encouraged people to embrace communism.

WTF: Same song second verse from

What you dismiss as "song and dance" is our explaining a real threat. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, former members came out and substantiated the argument that was made against them. They had plans to spread communism throughout the globe.

WTF: you vast industrial military complex defenders.

Let's take a look of one of the things that you've said on this thread:

"You Canadians convict people before any evidence is presented?" - WTF

The same concept, behind your accusation to her, applies with your comment. I don't recognize myself with your "industrial complex defenders" fart. So, let's examine the evidence, as you argue above, shall we?

What part of the following statement DON'T you understand?

"Given the asymmetrical warfare that we're involved in, we have to be doing what we're doing right now to defeat the threat that intends to illuminate us as a culture, as a non Muslim people. Our failure to do what we're doing right now invites the enemy to succeed with their goal... establishing global Islamic law." -herfacechair

In both instances, strategic issues surrounding Vietnam, and with the War on Terror, we're dealing with legitimate threats. I'm NOT defending the military industrial complex. Anybody with reading comprehension abilities could see that. You would've seen that if you applied the concept behind what you told another poster on this thread.

WTF: You may scare the women folks into footing your bills

Both genders, and all races, are represented among those who see the true nature of our threat with crystal clear reality. Take it from this German:

"For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy--because everything is at stake." -Mathias Döpfner

The statement by these Chinese Colonels describe why you simply don't get it:

"Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military....This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operations other than military means." -Col. Qiao Liang and Col. Wang Xiangsui 1999

I've read their book twice. The U.S. Military is interchanged with the United States, NATO, Western Civilization, and traditional Nations throughout the book. That book scratches the surface of the true nature of the war that we're engaged in right now.

"Means contrary to tradition" and "frequency bandwidths," perfectly describes your failure, even refusal, to see the threat that we're facing.

WTF: but as far as I'm concerned the only job I'm willing to pay for your type is a TSA screener.

The TSA screener would lose his job if the military is unable to do their job. For someone that's "able" to see beyond this decade, you of all people should realize that. This proves that you're not all about economic efficiency. In fact, you don't really care about national defense, as you come across as hating the military.

WTF: Perfect job for you.

I don't have the desire to be a TSA Screener, "F" that. The military is the perfect job for me right now.

WTF: China is our biggest threat btw,

They're ONE of our biggest threats.

WTF: not some backward thinking Muslims......

Wrong. You're missing the point behind the radical Muslim threat. You see the terrorists, and their attacks, as isolated events. But, if you bothered to study unrevised history, and if you bothered to read and listen to the things that our enemies are saying (another one of my off duty activities), you'd get the bigger picture.

According to the radical Islamists, their mission is to bring the whole world under the banner of Islam. Read what Bin Laden told us in his open letter to the United States.

What the Radical Muslims want us to do to stop the terrorist attacks against us:

Open letter to the United States, from Osama Bin Laden:

Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

The call to join Islam, that's the offer, that the Moors offered their soon to be conquered people, prior to the Moors' invading the latter.

The bottom line, as it has been since Muhammad's rise in the dark ages, is that the main goal is to convert the whole world to Islam.

This is a war that has ben waged against non-Muslims for centuries. Prior to Muhammad's rise, northern Africa was predominantly Christian. Egypt, Libya, Syria, Palestine, etc., were predominantly Christian. By the time the Crusades were launched, 2/3 Islam had wiped out 2/3's of Christianity.

Iran, prior to Muhammad, was predominantly a Zoroastrianism area. Today, they're predominantly Islam.

The Moorish Caliphates was the beginning of what was supposed to be a full world conversion to Islam. This conflict between them and their targets has gone on throughout the decades. This is connected to the fact that European powers had to pay northern African states tributes to use the Mediterranean Seas unhindered.

Our first war on terrorism was the Barbary wars. We were brand new as a "nation," back then, there were no oil fields to capture, and Israel didn't exist. But they attacked our shipping, and we ended up fighting the Barbary Wars.

The terrorist attacks in New York, London, Madrid, and elsewhere are connected, and are part of a methodical attack against the West, against non-Muslim countries, to carry out a war they've ben waging since Muhammad's rise.

As the leading Western Nation, we have to capitalize on our strengths to halt their centuries old war against Western Civilization... perishing if we have to in the process of fighting them and their efforts. This includes the efforts we're taking to rally other countries to this cause.

If you insist that they're a bunch of backwards Muslims, not only are you failing to see the bigger picture, but you failed to hop onboard the reality bus when it stopped at your location.

WTF: and the American public footed your military education?

My military education focused on what I needed to do while performing my assigned occupation specialty. I'm described as a subject matter expert. So don't worry, the American Public's money was well spent in my case.

charlestudor2005: For someone who is infallible (at least in your own mind),

Wrong. I never claimed to be perfect. A look at our exchange would show a critical thinker that my argument is valid, and reflect real world realities. Those from the opposition? Mostly from an emotional standpoint.

charlestudor2005: you can't spell "eliminate" or "stake."

First, the words that you highlighted: "illuminate" and "state".

Neither word is misspelled. The words that I used are correctly spelled. Don't dismiss my failure to use the proper words as my being "unable" to spell them. What you pointed out as my "not being able to spell" is actually you pointing errors in word use.

Second, given the availability of spellchecking software, you don't come from a position of strength when you point "spelling errors" out.

Third, attacking a person's spelling, or grammar, as a main effort in a debate is a tactic that the losing side of the debate uses. You're not the first one that has done this. The others that pulled the same tactic did so when they found themselves on the rope. They'd rather do this than to have the integrity to break contact from a debate they were losing. They're doing this just to continue to have a say. You're no different.

Fourth, if you're going to resort to that tactic, make sure that you're perfect. For instance, from your posts:

1. Gawd, I hate Conan. [It's God, not "Gawd."]

2. Whatever she is doing looks painful!!! [Exclamation Point redundancy, only one is needed]

Fifth, I never claimed that I was perfect when it comes to coming up with posts that qualifies as something that I'd turn in to be graded.

charlestudor2005: And you have not created a "debate" on this site,

It takes more than one person to create a debate... unless someone choses to debate themselves. On this thread, we obviously have people disagreeing with each other. This is a debate.

charlestudor2005: especially as you are the sole arbiter of who "wins" said debate.

When I'm describing the other side as losing the debate, I'm calling it as I see it. As anybody could see, we have an ongoing debate, with two sides arguing against each other. To someone that's not on your side of the argument, a critical thinker would look at our exchange and see your side as losing the debate. Your side has consistently failed to back your opinions with a reasonable argument.

For example, your claims that I have not "created" a debate on this side. Anybody with common sense would disagree with that statement. Do you see how obvious it is how you're on the losing end of the argument?

Using your analogy, I can't declare "check mate," while playing chess, when there's no third party present.

Two key things to consider: one is that I'm addressing you point by point and two; we're no longer debating the original topic that we debated. This is because you constantly shifted your stance, and argument, when you saw that you couldn't stand your ground on your original argument.

charlestudor2005: A debate anticipates a neutral arbiter, and you are hardly that.

No it doesn't. A debate takes place when two sides are exchanging opposing statements. We've got a debate going on in this thread. We need at least two people to cause a debate to take place, that's two people exchanging their disagreement, on a topic, against each other on this thread... or elsewhere.

herfacechair, is that avatar really necessary for an escort board?

Hey PJ I am sooo tempted to change my avatar

Yea, I've heard about your avatar changes. I dare ya.

Honestly guys, the more you feed the troll the more he's gonna shit blue crap all over this board. Just ignore him and let him move on to his next unfortunate target.

Mazo.

Yea, I've heard about your avatar changes. I dare ya. Originally Posted by Ansley

Hey PJ how do I deny a lovely lady? And she dared me, bad idea dear lol