Charlie Sheen Interview
 

I know that many of you guys are not going to like this post, but I don't really care.
(especially for those who care not to read fully and specifically critique this paper: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html )

Charlie Sheen, even with his past personal problems, is to be admired for speaking out so firmly on this issue.

well... here it is-
Charlie Sheen Interview:

http://www.infowars.com/video/clips/...een_911_wm.htm

because, you know, Charlie Sheen is qualified to be a voice of reason on the issue.

BEING FAMOUS DOES NOT GIVE YOU CREDIBILITY ON THINGS OUTSIDE YOUR FIELD.

maybe only Political Scientists should be allowed to become activists.

Re: Charlie Sheen Interview
 

For those of you who don't understand this part of his post, refer to this:
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=72504

Is he to be admired because he agrees with your view? Should it be a big issue because Charlie Sheen has spoken out about it?

I don't think so.

Also, your idea of "read fully and critique" seems to be "completely agree with and don't question," which seems odd considering your history of posts.

If I wanted a celebrity to help validate my point of view, Charlie Sheen would be at the very bottom of my list. Sorry but the guy is a joke.

Re: Charlie Sheen Interview
 

Emilio Estevez, Charlie Sheen's stunt double, has an audio clip saying you're a baboon.

-Rudey
--Emilio wins

That quite possibly may be the most mmoronic, skewed outlook on a series of events that I have ever heard from anyone. Charlie Sheen needs to drink a bucket of bleach and do us all a favor...fucking idiot.

:confused:

Each to His own isnt it?

Amazing, He Plays the President on TV! Much Easier isnt it?:rolleyes:

Stars can say what they want and Poloticions want them to do the $$$$ Grubbing!:eek:

Oh Well, do on Morons!!!!:p

Thats Martin Sheen

Maybe Charlie's last round of penicillin treatments didn't work so well...
sorry, but I have just about had it with celebs who would never have the forum they have if not for their celebrity.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you should just fuck off and die then? I hope you get hit by a bus

When people condem "celebrities" for using their position as a soapbox, it seems to me that they are overlooking that many of us use whatever position we may have to further our arguments.

In fact, the most obvious to me are the Presidency, the administration and other political offices.

Who else can fly off on Air Force One (or other government transportation) to give a speech at (name the organization) in (name the city) to argue in favor of (name the cause), and be fairly certain that she/he will get national media coverage?

Who else but the President can basically demand time on prime-time television?

Please notice that I use the terms Presidency, administration, etc. generically and am not pointing the finger at either party or any particular President. Both parties use the opportunity.

Besides, in the end, any American has the right to use any legal means to get his/her point before the public. Simply because a person is famous doesn't mean she/he should be penalized simply because he/she has a bigger, and more visible soapbox.

By the way, are we forgetting that a "loyal opposition" is one of the tenants upon which our country was founded -- which, to my way of thinking, includes freedom of speech, the press and multi-party politics?

I'm not against free speech by any means. I'm against people talking out of their asses about things they know nothing about.

Sure, but couldn't that be said about a large percentage of our elected officlals at any level?

Unfortunately, you don't have to really understand a subject to think you do and comment on it.

The really sad thing is that some of them have the opportunity to actually learn about things, don't, and then make idiots of themselves anyway.

I'd certainly agree with that statement. I think that most of our elected officials are woefully uninformed on many subjects.

Sorry, I was editing my last comment while you were posting yours, but I don't think it changes anything.

I think that State Legislatures should be muli-party and membership in any political party should disquallify someone from serving in the U.S. Congress. Then there would never be totalitarism here.




Think about it, in a two-party system, you're only one away from totalitarism.

You're going to have to explain your logic to me.

As long as there are at least two parties, there will be someone to vote for.

That's not true in a totalitarian system as I would define it.

I beg you not to encourage him.

-Rudey

Ooooops.

fuck you

Yeah, but my point is, what if something bad happend to one of them? Like the Democrats got together at their meeting and found out their orginization is bankrupt, and they disband as a party.

That leaves the other major party with total control.

I wouldn't want either of these two parties to be the only one.

Honestly, you don't humor, impress, or make anyone feel sorry for you because you act like a complete dolt on greekchat and make inane remarks. There is no way you could be that much of a boob so why do you keep posting like that?

-Rudey
--Cussing will get you nowhere

Glad you finally had enough in you to talk to me directly.

I don't care if you find humor in my posts and I don't need anyone's sympathy.

I call the world like I see it, and I make more sense than you do. You are a Jewish neo-fascist, and no one can even understand that. Do society a favor and go jump off a building.

I will continue to say what ever I feel needs to be said.

If you have a problem with that, well then I already said it. Fuck you.

If you're going to continue to make statements in the forum, you should at least realize that people are going to question them. The attitude by some posters that their ideas or thoughts are beyond debate is, simply, very confusing.

Honestly, you should probably take a step back, calm down a bit, and realize that threatening people on a message board isn't going to accomplish much of anything.

On the topic - it bothers me when celebrities get on political soapboxes, but it is certainly their right to do so. It's also our right to question their knowledge and intelligence when they make their claims.

I don't agree with the rest of his post, but I don't get what's to debate about the part that was quoted.

We only have (2) two (major) political parties, and if you take (1)one away (=)you get (1)totalitarianism. 2-1=1 What's so hard about that? Yes, it's unlikely that either party would take a dive, but theoretically, it could happen. I believe that's what his point was.

You may want to look up the neofascist movement, specifically with regard to:

1 - why the inherent 'nationalism' of the Judaic faith probably precludes 'fascism' from being used correctly

and

2 - why the combination of 1. and the historical interaction of Jews with fascists makes the term 'neofascist Jew' a political slur, if not worse

It ignores the fact that those who were Democrats or Republicans would not all flock to the other party. They would join with the Green party, Libertarians, or any other number of parties out there. We would still have a multiple-party system.

Totalitarianism does not equal single-party system - while the ideologies would intersect, they are simply not interchangable terms. I hate to get all semantic (possibly semiotic), but seriously.

A totalitarian regime would be, by definition, 'single-party' in that all opposition would be crushed - but a single party system does not guarantee totalitarian authority over all matters. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition - hence, if you 'get his point' you're making a mistaken logical leap, which is most certainly an error.

I suppose that while you mastered the art of becoming Greekchat.com's village idiot, you also mastered the ability to curse and to use slurs.

You're nothing but a joke on here. I've called you on it before as well, so don't pretend it's anything new.

-Rudey

I've always thought that I was the village idiot, and I don't want either of you horning in on my territory.

Any chance of getting back to a semi-civil discussion?

Or, is it just another idiotic idea I have?

What discussion was there to be had in this thread?

Could it have been yet another claim posted by a boob on why 9/11 was staged?

Perhaps it was a claim posted by a bobble head that makes zero sense about one political party out of many magically disappearing and then incorrectly defining a system of government?

Nobody can encroach on this man's village idiot front yard.

-Rudey
--Sorry, today is not a day for generosity.

Guess not.

No slur. He called himself Jewish. And in the politcal party thread he identified himself as Fascist. I'm just calling him what he called himself (I threw in the "neo" because of I thought it fit better semantically).

Also, name one single party that wouldn't take control of everything a la totalitiarianism as classicaly defined by people outside of this board? Anyone of them would. How succesful and how long their regime would last probably can't be answered by this thread.

By the way, I didn't start a debate. I made an obersvation. A second party asked me a question. A third party interupted negitively, and un-provoced, as he has often done in the past for no real reason. So I responded in kind.

I suppose that while you mastered the art of becoming Greekchat.com's village idiot, you also mastered the ability to curse and to use slurs.

You're nothing but a joke on here. I've called you on it before as well, so don't pretend it's anything new.

-Rudey

Glad you mastered cut and paste.

I don't think you've called me out per se.

You've annoyed me, that's for sure.

Keep doing drugs and posting silly thoughts sprinkled with curses and slurs on here.

-Rudey