Club Cobra
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Club Cobra (http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/)
-   Lounge (http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/lounge/)
-   -   Pave Tibet! (http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/lounge/86734-pave-tibet.html)

meat 04-12-2008 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerslide (Post 834062)
Meat....take a deep breath!
Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by powerslide (Post 834071)
I hereby nominate "meat" as the official historian for CC since he is the only one who has accurate knowledge of history
I'm hardly the only one who has an accurate knowledge of history. But, compared to you, I'm more than just a Mensa member; I'm a genius-level historian.

I digress, though. Knowing history has virtually nothing at all to do with the response I made to the post I quoted. Not sure why you'd nominate me for historian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by powerslide (Post 834071)
....and the rest of us don't know what we are talking about'
Yeah ... About that. I'm not sure why you're dragging other people down in your sinking dingy, but there are plenty of people who know what they're talking about. You can speak for yourself, but you certainly don't speak for anyone else.

Your pal,
Meat.

meat 04-12-2008 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlynMeek (Post 834075)
WOW...Meat, please don't take this the wrong way, but you are one pi$$ed off guy about life in general!
Why would I take an inaccurate observation the wrong way? It only shows you for being the fool, not I.

I never write angry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlynMeek (Post 834075)
Do you ever lighten up about ANYTHING?
I tolerate you, don't I?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlynMeek (Post 834075)
It seems that all the 'rants' in here are like a red rag to a bull for you!
Just a couple of notes:
The word "rant" doesn't mean what you think it means, and certainly not in the context that you're using it. If I see an idiotic post, I'll certainly respond to it - being an idiotic post doesn't make it a rant. If I see a topic that needs further clarification, I'll certainly respond to it - being a vague post doesn't make it a rant. If I see a post I disagree with, I'll certainly respond to it - being wrong doesn't make it a rant.

I won't respond with a 'me too!' post, because that's just lame.

Bulls can't see colors, so a red rag generally holds no interest to a bull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlynMeek (Post 834075)
We're all 'Dust in the wind" anyhow, and in the long scope of history, nothing really matters THIS much!
You're completely wrong; history matters. It always matters. If it didn't we wouldn't have any use for a small British sports car with a big American V8 in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlynMeek (Post 834075)
Tread carefully up there, it's a long fall from the lofty 'bully pulpit'!
Hardly.

Your pal,
Meat.

GlynMeek 04-12-2008 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meat (Post 834090)
The word "rant" doesn't mean what you think it means, and certainly not in the context that you're using it.
hmmm...well, lets see here. The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "rant" (and hence MY understanding of it) is as follows...

. v. 1 intr. use bombastic language. 2 tr & intr. declaim, recite theatrically. 3 intr. speak vehemently or wildly. 4 tr & intr. preach noisily
. n. 1 a piece of ranting, a tirade. 2 empty turgid talk

mea maxima culpa, I stand corrected that not everything to which you respond is a rant. In fact, a lot of the posts to which you respond are often far from rants, merely measured opinions which, while being far from idiotic, generally tend to differ from your own somewhat limited perspectives...BUT...I think you have to admit that your OWN responses fall under at least one of the 6, aforementioned definitions of the word "rant", every time :).

Just because politically you are a little right of Attila the Hun does NOT necessarily make YOUR opinions and views either sensible or correct!

YOUR pal

Glyn

PS You are obviously bright enough to recognize "a red rag to a bull" as a colloquialism, NOT a literal statement. Anyone with ANY sense realizes this, and that the bull reacts to the motion of the 'rag', NOT the color.

Jamo 04-12-2008 09:20 PM
Meat...three threads-three warnings, bud.

Come on...go find some porn and take a few moments for yourself. You'll feel better.

:cool:

Excaliber 04-12-2008 09:57 PM
I'm having a hard time figuring out who the biggest looser is in the lounge lately. It's a tough call between Cobra de capell and meat, running neck and neck. :D

Jamo 04-12-2008 11:57 PM
Ernie...is that supposed to help?

:cool:

Excaliber 04-12-2008 11:57 PM
Frustration boils over from time to time...

Jamo 04-13-2008 12:45 AM
Okay. LMFAO :p

RICK LAKE 04-13-2008 05:09 AM
Bulls, and horses are not color blind
 
Meat I have had Horses and a couple of small cows. They have proved that horses are not color blind along with cows, They can see different colors of browns,greys,blacks and blues. They wave red and pink cape to piss off the bulls. This is the only color they use for this. This is done from the first month they are born to the day( if they are a male ) are killed in the ring. It's a little like rodeo with out the rider and the ball crusher strap:eek:No strap, no dancing bull. As for the president, the last time I checked, he can do nothing without the backing of congress, both houses, and cabinette members. Relax, I have gotten strikes too on this forum. Jamo is pretty good about letting you write your opinion. I am not picking sides, they just want a time out.;) Rick L. Ps you should see what happens when you pick on CS.%/:)

meat 04-13-2008 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamo (Post 834142)
Meat...three threads-three warnings, bud.
I made my point. Don't need no porn.:LOL:

Your pal,
Meat.

Jamo 04-13-2008 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meat (Post 834221)
I made my point....

Your pal,
Meat.
Hopefully, I've made mine. :cool:

Paul F 04-13-2008 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meat (Post 832974)
Sure you can. Your choice to keep your blinders on and refuse to actively participate in reality is the only thing stopping you.


Again ... you're the one with the blinders on.

"We" are not sacrificing lives. Brave men and women are doing something that you clearly do not understand - probably because you only enjoy freedom, and that enjoyment isn't based on any actual effort on your part - they are protecting freedom.

I know, I know, it's a concept you and people like you will never understand.


Really? Huh. Let's look into that a bit closer.

First off, it's been proven over countless centuries that protest and revolution do not work. Not only does the protesting generally alienate everyone, but it also tends to turn the undecided - the fence sitters - against the protesters. There has only been one revolution that has resulted in the peaceful passing of power beyond the initial revolutionaries - and that resulted in the United States of America.

Next, the differences between Iraq, Afghanistan and Tibet are too numerous to list here. Also, the war isn't being fought over land, it's being fought over ideals. The war, in case you missed the memo, it against terror. While you may tend to empathize with the animals that kill children and innocents because they're stupid and ignorant, most of the rest of the world believes that their cause is neither just nor a cause. That you believe that a terrorist is an 'equally opressed populus' to a Tibetan shows only your ignorance to the plight of the Tibetans as well as a general lack of intelligence when it comes to world affairs. But don't let that stop you from shouting your jack@ssery from the rooftops; it'll make everyone else feel better knowing they're smarter than you are.

Furthermore, there are virtually no Tibetans among the protesters in any of the countries where the protests have been staged. Just local kooks who have - like you - no knowledge of what they're protesting or what the real issues are. Therefore, there's no 'equally opressed populus' anywhere on the scene. Your argument fails.

Finally, the crux of your argument demonstrates an amazing lack of comprehension. There's no one here not 'allowing' your imaginary (and conspicuously absent) populous from protesting. In most cases and countries, protesters can protest as long as they get the proper permits, but I digress.

Allow me to put it in small words for you so that you'll understand: the protesters are turning public opinion against their cause by using an event that brings the world together to celebrate for an idiotic political stunt that is wholly unrelated to the event. If they had paved Tibet two years ago, I would have cared. If they pave it now, I'll support it.


No, you didn't.

Your pal,
Meat.
American Revolution.

meat 04-13-2008 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul F (Post 834426)
American Revolution.
Uh, yeah. That's the revolution I referenced, in the same paragraph you where you highlighted the sentence:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul F (Post 834426)
Quote:
Originally Posted by meat (Post 832974)
First off, it's been proven over countless centuries that protest and revolution do not work. Not only does the protesting generally alienate everyone, but it also tends to turn the undecided - the fence sitters - against the protesters. There has only been one revolution that has resulted in the peaceful passing of power beyond the initial revolutionaries - and that resulted in the United States of America.
"...There has only been one revolution that has resulted in the peaceful passing of power beyond the initial revolutionaries - and that resulted in the United States of America..."

Your pal,
Meat.

VRM 04-13-2008 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meat (Post 834436)

"...There has only been one revolution that has resulted in the peaceful passing of power beyond the initial revolutionaries - and that resulted in the United States of America..."

Your pal,
Meat.
Geez...I thought of a few others in recent years right off the top of my head...:rolleyes:
Iran, Romania, the Philippines, Latvia, Estonia, and Lituania. I would not have remembered the last three on my own without having has a short chat with my friends wife Tuula on Friday.

Even China has had a peaceful succession of leaders after their revolution, though they have not changed parties.

I support the right of people to decide their own government, and to use whatever method they think will work (though they may end up making enemies of the wrong people depending on their tactics). Lives, fortunes, and sacred honour...

Steve

Jamo 04-14-2008 12:14 AM
You forgot the Soviet Union. Course, Stalin's idea of a peaceful transition was a little different than ours, but Khrushchev and the boys all handed off rather peacefully, and Putkin took over nicely for the move back to Mother Russia.

Raul has taken over from Fidel rather smoothly it seems.

Shawn...just a bit off on this one, buddy. ;)

VRM 04-14-2008 08:15 AM
Jamo,
I didn't forget Russia - I picked the ones that I remembered reading about in the news (there is an island country that happened around the same time as the Philipines, but I can't remember which, and I'm too damn lazy to look it up). I added China because of it's relevance to the topic. Russia is similar enough in circumstance to China that it really wasn't worth mentioning (though they did survive 50 years longer, as well as some rather 'interesting' times). I'm sure any of us could take 5-10 minutes and come up with half a dozen more.

It also proves, contrary to Meats 'genius level historian' thinking, that protest and revolution DO work. India and Pakistan can be added to the list above; they were created, along with some of the aforementiond countries, by protest.

Edit: To be fair - I did forget Cubas recent 'handover' (though I think giving power over to another family member is cheating).

Steve

meat 04-14-2008 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VRM (Post 834457)
Geez...I thought of a few others in recent years right off the top of my head...:rolleyes:
Iran, Romania, the Philippines, Latvia, Estonia, and Lituania. I would not have remembered the last three on my own without having has a short chat with my friends wife Tuula on Friday.

Even China has had a peaceful succession of leaders after their revolution, though they have not changed parties.

I support the right of people to decide their own government, and to use whatever method they think will work (though they may end up making enemies of the wrong people depending on their tactics). Lives, fortunes, and sacred honour...
With all due respect to the nations involved: Iran's "revolution" is still ongoing, Romania's "revolution" was a revolution in name only - nothing really changed, and Latvia, Estonia and Lituania's struggles were for restoration - not really a revolution at all. Of all the "revolutions" mentioned, only the first Philippine revolution comes particularly close to actually being such.

A revolution is a dramatic change, not a merely a shift in direction, or a civil war. To date, the American Revolution is the only true and successful revolution.

Your pal,
Meat.

VRM 04-14-2008 09:43 AM
Meat,
'dramatic change' is subjective and not quantifiable. The American revolution could have ended with HRH granting representation to us pesky colonials. That would probably not have been enough to qualify as 'dramatic' in your eyes, but it still constitutes change, and would have been exactly what the colonials wanted.

Iran threw out their monarchy and established a theocracy (Russia and China also changed forms of government during their revolutions). They have had 30 years of peaceful transitions of power between parties that really do not like each other (and Russia and China even longer). American democracy is often termed 'the Great Experiment' - our revolution is ongoing as well. Both are valid examples of successful revolutions, and there are many others that have already been pointed out that have used a variety of methods for the revolutionaries to get what they want.

Protest and revolution can work.

Steve

meat 04-14-2008 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VRM (Post 834558)
Meat,
'dramatic change' is subjective and not quantifiable. The American revolution could have ended with HRH granting representation to us pesky colonials. That would probably not have been enough to qualify as 'dramatic' in your eyes, but it still constitutes change, and would have been exactly what the colonials wanted.
The American Revolution resulted in the creation of a new country, with a new form of government, a constitution, and a peaceful transport of power.

What it 'could have ended up with' is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VRM (Post 834558)
Iran threw out their monarchy and established a theocracy (Russia and China also changed forms of government during their revolutions).
Iran was a change of ownership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VRM (Post 834558)
American democracy is often termed 'the Great Experiment' - our revolution is ongoing as well. Both are valid examples of successful revolutions, and there are many others that have already been pointed out that have used a variety of methods for the revolutionaries to get what they want.
The 'Great Experiment' is the belief in liberty, achievement through hard work, and the belief that all men are created equal. It's not about democracy, it's about a representative republic. And it's the only valid example of a successful revolution - significant change.

Giving the keys to the renter of an apartment isn't any more of a revolution than coming out with a new flavor for a soft drink and calling it 'New Coke.' It's still the same can, it's still from the same manufacturer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VRM (Post 834558)
Protest and revolution can work.
Protest may work - in that it draws attention and tends to alienate - but it never succeeds. The 60s are over, the experiment failed, and bell bottoms fell out of style.

Your pal,
Meat.

VRM 04-14-2008 10:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meat (Post 834568)
The American Revolution resulted in the creation of a new country, with a new form of government, a constitution, and a peaceful transport of power.

Meat.
India and Pakistan meet all of those criteria. And they did it by protest rather than armed insurrection, thus proving that protest does in fact work well enough to create two countries at the same time. Cape Verde meets the same criteria, though they used arms to acheive the ends they wanted.

Steve


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:24 AM.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
The representations expressed are the representations and opinions of the clubcobra.com forum members and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and viewpoints of the site owners, moderators, Shelby American, any other replica manufacturer, Ford Motor Company. This website has been planned and developed by clubcobra.com and its forum members and should not be construed as being endorsed by Ford Motor Company, or Shelby American or any other manufacturer unless expressly noted by that entity. "Cobra" and the Cobra logo are registered trademarks for Ford Motor Co., Inc. clubcobra.com forum members agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyrighted material is owned by you. Although we do not and cannot review the messages posted and are not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we reserve the right to delete any message for any reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold us harmless with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s). Thank you for visiting clubcobra.com. For full policy documentation refer to the following link: