Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Mustang1, the point he is trying to make is that sites like CKA can't live up to their own standards. It's not that rabble lives by these retarded rules, but to hold those accountable for breaking their own rules. I couldn't care less where my clothes are bought, or anything else for that matter, but a lot of people here apparently DO. All rabble is doing is bringing the hypocrisy of their position to light.

   

Hmmmm, a n00b supporting another n00b. Any mods out there to check the IP addresses?

   

well, if we support the US economy, we are supporting the worlds #1 terrorist... George Bush Jr.

   

Go ahead and check.

   

Point?!?!? He was trying to make a point?!?!? The operative word is “trying.” Besides, what standards? Perhaps you could elaborate on that? Besides, isn’t he hypocritically guilty of the very thing he chastises CKA for allegedly committing? He doesn’t possess anything that isn’t a produce of globalization? Come on, I’d love to see you address that glaring problem.



Then he’s an insincere first-rate hypocrite. Why should anyone entertain the notions of a twit who can’t practice what he preaches? This (and many other reasons) is why this dullard lacks any ethical currency here. He should come back when he loses the sanctimonious attitude and gets a clue. I won’t hold my breath.



Then they should practice what they preach and critique the merits of globalization and the economic history of Canada, and not quit spewing amateurish crap about one website on the Internet. If this is the best this guy can do, then he’s already lost.



By being a hypocrite himself?!?!?!? Brilliant tactic. This smacks of intellectual projection and this halfwit is as guilty as sin.

Nice try, “Dithers”

   

Mustang1 you apparently have missed the point yet again. Rabblewatch isn't preaching anything, he doesn't claim to be free of globalization, in fact he says just the opposite if you payed any attention to what he is saying other than just a passing glance. Your whole argument is akin to saying that if I criticize Michael Moore for having shares in McDonalds while he is denouncing the stockmarket at the same time, I shouldn't be involved in the stockmarket!

   

How about thongs and panties...

I Want Boxers!!!

IP's are the same BTW...

   

Then please enlighten me as to how I “missed the point yet again.”



He’s spewing disingenuous rhetoric.



He hasn’t posted anything as such. And how would YOU know this anyway? Interesting.



Be careful. Why don’t you show me how he’s a supporter of globalization. Why not demonstrate where he’s acknowledged the historical reality of Canadian/British North America and American economic ties? Besides, if he allegedly is aware of these things, why illuminate the obvious? Why waste our time with identifying the reality of our contemporary economic climate? I’ll be extremely interested in seeing how this is addressed.



Argumentative fallacy aside, that’s not my argument at all. I wouldn’t make such an obvious amateurish mistake as that. That was your poor analogy, not mine. Please don’t project your intellectual shortcomings on to me.

I’ll be sporting and fix it for you. My argument wrests on the inherent hypocrisy of chastising others for acts that you cannot abstain from yourself. It would be akin to berating someone for owning shares in McDonalds while simultaneously owning shares in the same company and extolling the virtues of communism and calling for the end of free-market capitalism.

Here’s one more for ya.’ Some Commander of the Obvious craps on an Internet site for selling shirts that are allegedly made in a sweatshop (and by extension, smugly condemning those that inadvertently contribute to the acknowledged negatives of the global economy) and yet, shops at Wal-Mart, drives a VW Beetle, watches a Sony T.V., while wearing Adidas shoes, shorts and shirt, sipping on 7-11 Big Gulp, while listening to Madonna on his Apple Ipod. Any questions?

   

How would I know? I read his blog for one, I've read his posts here for another. Maybe you should do the same before you criticize him.


Rabblewatch has stated numerous times on both his blog and this website that he doesn't care whether or not a company out sources to third world countries, or whether or not we are deeply integrated with the USA. That is beside the point he is making.

The point is that websites like CKA tote around the "no deep integration with the USA" banner all the while supporting the USA with their business at the same time.


Since when has rabblewatch said he is against deep integration with the USA or globalization?

   

Purchasing products from the USA does not mean that we are becoming deeply intergrated with them any more then it does from any other country we buy goods from.

   

Is it clarified somewhere on this forum on what exactly the slogan means? If not I don't see how my interpretation of it is any less valid than yours.

   

Rabblewatch and his alter-ego/bitch "PM_Dithers" are awesome! Does anyone remember the neo-nazi revisionists that came onto HT just before it went belly-up? These guys are like them! They're like a radio controlled Mr. Potatohead style Slinky!

JJG? Willyboy? Darth Vader??*


*Inside joke

   

Then show me the text here on CKA that claims he is free of globalization (which still begs the question: why chastise others for the acts he can’t abstain from himself?)



Firstly, he’s not making a point. He’s stating the obvious, which really isn’t needed. Secondly, then why comment on the alleged sweatshop issue here?



This is problematic on numerous fronts. Firstly, you’ve erroneously assumed the “no deep integration with the USA” refers solely to economic matters. Where does it explicitly state this? Could it not also be about political and cultural integration as well? Do you think that perhaps that the specific diction used – or, in this case, the ambiguity – might suggest that very notion? You ponder that for a bit while I move on.

Secondly, “deep” integration is also specifically stated. As I stated previously – and you failed to address – is that economic integration has long been a part of Canadian/British North American and United States history and as such has been a political reality for hundreds of years. The “deep” part might allude to contemporary issues with FTA and later NAFTA and globalization. It might be a commentary on the encroaching element of the United States that his currently plaguing the Canadian economic landscape.

Thirdly, what does Third-World economic issues (like sweatshops) have to do with CKA and the United States? If your beef is with globalization, then simply state it. Why critique CKA’s alleged t-shirt manufacturing origins and then attack its merits on a narrow interpretation of a site slogan? Where’s the direct link? Seems pretty disorganized and logically fallacious.



Nice dodge. I noticed how you conveniently omitted my correction of your piss poor analogy and tried to obfuscate matters with some prattle that is largely immaterial. Show me where he supports globalization and American economic integration on this thread.

   

Wrong, fucktard. You made the assumption; the onus is on you to substantiate it. You erroneously narrowly interpreted it and now you are being called to task on your questionable reading comprehension skills. That’s not my problem. Next time, ask for clarification as it might help avoid these little missteps.

   

Exactly! Go check out his online alter ego, “rabblewatch” whine and cry on the Erinites thread because a mod had the audacity to legitimately check an IP address. What a bunch of sucks.

*

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next