War Room Awards 2016

[Lubaolong]

Good morning, Doctor.

Not sure if that is meant as an insult or to rouse some emotion in me. I get called doctor 20 times a day at least and am very desensitized to the title. You might as well have said, "Good morning, Lubaolong."

 

[Thurisaz]

You backed up that u suck at English and won't answer a direct question.

Funny that you don't call it "simple" anymore when I called you out on that lie too. I'm not responsible for English being what it is, you are fully to blame for making a statement that can be reasonably interpreted that you confess to agreeing with NF. That you're so butthurt over something that trivial tells me all I need to know about your capability to face facts about anything.

I'll comb through your stupid posts when i get on a PC and if I am wrong I'll be happy to admit it.

Yeah, like that's going to happen. I mean that you'll probably comb through my brilliant posting history, but when you notice I haven't ever advocated murder, you will just fall silent or lie about not having the time and probably being right anyway. You're predictable that way.

But I am fearful it will just boil down to you and your never ending war on the English language.

Yeah, it's me refusing to let it go when I haven't even mentioned it in my latest few comments on your silly flailing. Man, you really like to project.

 

[Fawlty]

Not sure if that is meant as an insult or to rouse some emotion in me. I get called doctor 20 times a day at least and am very desensitized to the title. You might as well have said, "Good morning, Lubaolong."

Well, frankly, you've earned it. It wasn't long ago you were leaving eggs in the vents while quitting at the gas station. You've come a very long way in a very short time, and for that, you should be commended.

 

[Thames]

Were they intent on coming to your home, I'd wager our definitions of "invader" would be the same. I simply extend the concept of home to the whole nation, since I happen to live in a nation state, which is the only place in the world to serve as the home for my people. I have no more right to give it away to foreigners than I have the right to let foreigners to my neighbor's home to rape his wife and daughters.

Different peoples do not mix. Diversity and proximity leads to war. There is historically and practically no difference between an invasion and mass immigration - the results are the same. So yes, I identify an invasion as what it is.

You see the difference between "them" breaking into my home, and them coming to my country, is that the aforementioned scenario would require them to break the law. If they come to my country, while respecting the laws in my country, then they can't be defined as invaders (unless you don't care about what words mean).

We live in a globalised world now. We never did that before, so looking to history for examples is asinine.

It's sort of hard to support something that has already been done without my support. But no, as I already said, I prefer less violent means. I'm not sure they prove effective, but when in case shit begins hitting the fan in a major way, I'm not going to be a one man army. One swallow does not a summer make. I still understand that what he did he did for his people and their interests in mind.

So killing a 14 year old because they lean left on the political spectrum (or happen to be in proximity of people who do), can be defined as "the interest of his people"?
Also, what "people" are you talking about? I would dare to estimate that 99% of the norwegian population condemn and despises what he did. Do you define the "people" as the ones who share your worldview? Because that's luckily a very narrow part of any given population.

I notice you insist on being vague. Yes, you would PREFER less violent means. But do you object to the means Breivik used?
That is a simple question for most people, see if you can handle it.

Again, it's entirely possible to achieve the desired result without killing people (unless the invaders put up a fight).

I iterate once again: I don't want this violence I predicted and see happening. I don't approve any of it, even if I understand why it happens and why I also won't condemn it. The people directly responsible for all these crimes, both against nationals and invaders, are the evil, corrupt governments who let them in in the first place. That's what happens with mass migration.

If I wanted violence, mass immigration would be my #1 agenda.

So just to be clear, you don't approve of the ultra nationals in Italy killing that refugee? Do you think they should be punished for their actions then?

 

[hitcher]

Luba is kicking ass and taking names. So far this has been a onesided beatdown by the Doctor.

 

[Lubaolong]

Well, frankly, you've earned it. It wasn't long ago you were leaving eggs in the vents while quitting at the gas station. You've come a very long way in a very short time, and for that, you should be commended.

Becoming a medical doctor wasn't a progression. It was more of a dislocation, a sidestep on a continuum that naturally waxes and wanes. My annual income increased some, sure, but at the cost of several years of lost wages. The biggest change for me was a jump in occupational prestige.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So... I'm still liberal on most key defining issues such as pro-choice rights, the separation of church and state, anti-imperialism, and I generally support a non-interventionist foreign policy. I also support socialized healthcare.

I wouldn't consider abortion to be a key defining issue (or a defining issue at all), and I'd define liberalism more as a way of thinking, though separation of church and state, limited gov't, and equal rights are all essential positions. Also, odd that you wouldn't mention economics, which is a far more significant divider.

My social views are probably what throw you off.

What throws me off is the ankle-biting of good liberal posters, the boosting of dumb right-wing nutters, the anger, the "typical lib"-type comments, the use of right-wing knuckle-dragger terms like "Obummer," the Trump AV, the title, etc. In 99% of your posts, you're indistinguishable from 30 other right-wing idiots, like (I'll leave out DS) second sight, pwent, palis, rhinorush, KONE, SMEAC, lecter, lfd, etc. Seems natural to assume that you'd agree with people who post exactly like you.

But anyway, interesting that you seem to feel an extremely strong affinity with right-wingers and fear of liberals when you yourself are a liberal.

BTW, holy shit has this thread picked up.

 

[Gandhi]

Funny that you don't call it "simple" anymore when I called you out on that lie too. I'm not responsible for English being what it is, you are fully to blame for making a statement that can be reasonably interpreted that you confess to agreeing with NF. That you're so butthurt over something that trivial tells me all I need to know about your capability to face facts about anything.


Yeah, like that's going to happen. I mean that you'll probably comb through my brilliant posting history, but when you notice I haven't ever advocated murder, you will just fall silent or lie about not having the time and probably being right anyway. You're predictable that way.


Yeah, it's me refusing to let it go when I haven't even mentioned it in my latest few comments on your silly flailing. Man, you really like to project.

Oh wow I left out an adjective, you got me genius.

Never mind reasonably interpreted, I clarified it and u refused to accept my clarification and called me fascist. If you are now accepting it fine, it is a misunderstanding. But lol at your walk back after rehashing it and having it explained to you multiple times, you then drop it and declare some sort of bizarro victory. It gets brought up because you want me to go back and quote you, but the one time you do the same, you get tripped up by the word "could".

My guess is that you will pin this on us not accepting the same definition of murder or not agree that u classifying something as self defense, is the same as justifying it. I'll concede ahead of time that you may have been less advocating as opposed to rationalizing / apologizing, if we want to split that psychotic hair, then fine.

 

[Fawlty]

Becoming a medical doctor wasn't a progression. It was more of a dislocation, a sidestep on a continuum that naturally waxes and wanes. My annual income increased some, sure, but at the cost of several years of lost wages. The biggest change for me was a jump in occupational prestige and the admiration of others. You can score perfect on your SATs, win numerous state academic championships, finish college in a few months, and no one really pays you much attention. Become a retard medical doctor who drives a BMW, and everyone fawns over you.

A sidestep on a continuum that naturally waxes and wanes.

It's like metaphorical dark chocolate. Dare I say it shivers my blood. So east-western. I bet the retard doctors you work with as a doctor couldn't parse that one to save their mother's lives!

 

[Thurisaz]

You see the difference between "them" breaking into my home, and them coming to my country, is that the aforementioned scenario would require them to break the law.

Does your law allow country invasion? Would you go to jail if being white male were to be listed a legal offense?

If they come to my country, while respecting the laws in my country, then they can't be defined as invaders (unless you don't care about what words mean).

Okay, so if 200 million Africans decide to move in, vote to change laws to their liking and then decide to genocide your people you think they haven't invaded and there's nothing wrong with it, all being done through legal means?

We live in a globalised world now.

Bullshit. You live in a suicidally globalized West and the rest of the world is as ethnocentric as ever. Your sacrificing your own country results in nothing more than an unique people becoming a page in history books if even that.

We never did that before, so looking to history for examples is asinine.

True in the sense that the scale of mass immigration to the West is historically unprecedented in scale. The results have been the usual.

So killing a 14 year old because they lean left on the political spectrum (or happen to be in proximity of people who do), can be defined as "the interest of his people"?

What part of me speaking about his motivation didn't you understand?

Also, what "people" are you talking about?

Ethnic Norwegians.

I would dare to estimate that 99% of the norwegian population condemn and despises what he did.

In similar leap of blind faith with no facts behind it whatsoever I would dare to estimate that 100% of the Norwegian population loves what he did, including all immigrants and the people he killed.

Do you define the "people" as the ones who share your worldview?

No, I define peoples as defined by common ancestry, identity and shared values, in that order.

I notice you insist on being vague.

I'm not.

Yes, you would PREFER less violent means. But do you object to the means Breivik used?

That's what pfererring other means implies.

So just to be clear, you don't approve of the ultra nationals in Italy killing that refugee? Do you think they should be punished for their actions then?

No and yes, though the corrupt government is the main culprit here. If their government was doing their job, there would have been neither ultras nor their perceived need for killing whom they perceived an invader they can't get rid of through other means.

 

[Gandhi]

You see the difference between "them" breaking into my home, and them coming to my country, is that the aforementioned scenario would require them to break the law. If they come to my country, while respecting the laws in my country, then they can't be defined as invaders (unless you don't care about what words mean).

We live in a globalised world now. We never did that before, so looking to history for examples is asinine.



So killing a 14 year old because they lean left on the political spectrum (or happen to be in proximity of people who do), can be defined as "the interest of his people"?
Also, what "people" are you talking about? I would dare to estimate that 99% of the norwegian population condemn and despises what he did. Do you define the "people" as the ones who share your worldview? Because that's luckily a very narrow part of any given population.

I notice you insist on being vague. Yes, you would PREFER less violent means. But do you object to the means Breivik used?
That is a simple question for most people, see if you can handle it.



So just to be clear, you don't approve of the ultra nationals in Italy killing that refugee? Do you think they should be punished for their actions then?

And there it is

Do you support it? Do you think they should be punished?

Simple questions for some, rocket science for Teresa.

 

[Gandhi]

Does your law allow country invasion? Would you go to jail if being white male were to be listed a legal offense?


Okay, so if 200 million Africans decide to move in, vote to change laws to their liking and then decide to genocide your people you think they haven't invaded and there's nothing wrong with it, all being done through legal means?


Bullshit. You live in a suicidally globalized West and the rest of the world is as ethnocentric as ever. Your sacrificing your own country results in nothing more than an unique people becoming a page in history books if even that.


True in the sense that the scale of mass immigration to the West is historically unprecedented in scale. The results have been the usual.


What part of me speaking about his motivation didn't you understand?


Ethnic Norwegians.


In similar leap of blind faith with no facts behind it whatsoever I would dare to estimate that 100% of the Norwegian population loves what he did, including all immigrants and the people he killed.


No, I define peoples as defined by common ancestry, identity and shared values, in that order.


I'm not.


That's what pfererring other means implies.


No and yes, though the corrupt government is the main culprit here. If their government was doing their job, there would have been neither ultras nor their perceived need for killing whom they perceived an invader they can't get rid of through other means.

Preferring and objecting are NOT the same things. Great job with the yes and no, answer.

 

[Lubaolong]

///

 

[Thurisaz]

Oh wow I left out an adjective, you got me genius.

Never mind reasonably interpreted, I clarified it and u refused to accept my clarification and called me fascist. If you are now accepting it fine, it is a misunderstanding. But lol at your walk back after rehashing it and having it explained to you multiple times, you then drop it and declare some sort of bizarro victory. It gets brought up because you want me to go back and quote you, but the one time you do the same, you get tripped up by the word "could".

Still you keep harping about it in lieu of standing up to your words and claims about what I have said. I'm not forgetting your lies and keep reminding you of them.

Where have I ever approved of or advocated murder? You have claimed I do so no less than five times already and can't provide any proof. Now give it.

My guess is that you will pin this on us not accepting the same definition of murder or not agree that u classifying something as self defense, is the same as justifying it. I'll concede ahead of time that you may have been less advocating as opposed to rationalizing / apologizing, if we want to split that psychotic hair, then fine.

Murder is the act aggressively killing someone.

 

[Thurisaz]

Preferring and objecting are NOT the same things. Great job with the yes and no, answer.

Says the guy who keeps repeating that I advocate murder and not providing any evidence for it, ever. And yeah, preferring something is choosing that over others and objecting to is precisely to not prefer that choice in that situation.

 

[Limbo Pete]

This thread got so good

 

[Limbo Pete]

We got Thurizas trying to intimate without actually saying it that killing refugees is aight
Then we got Luba making grandiose claims about the presitige of his not-diffficult-to-earn "medical" degree
Excellent
Just excellent

 

[Thurisaz]

We got Thurizas trying to intimate without actually saying it that killing refugees is aight

Nah, he is saying not letting them in is aight and shooting them if they try to force themselves in is aight. The traitors who let them in make the question difficult, because it's the traitors who deserve to get shot and otherwise non offending illegals only expelled. That wrong people end up dead, too, is to be expected.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Nah, he is saying not letting them in is aight and shooting them if they try to force themselves in is aight. The traitors who let them in make the question difficult, because it's the traitors who deserve to get shot and otherwise non offending illegals only expelled.

I know we went through this before, but I really do think you'd genuinely enjoy the Turner Diaries

 

[Thurisaz]

I know we went through this before, but I really do think you'd genuinely enjoy the Turner Diaries