Marvel Universe >> View Post
·
Post By
seeker

In Reply To
MysteryMan

Subj: Is the only way you can counter what I say to pretend to know my viewpoints on things?
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:13:23 pm CDT
Reply Subj: Re: I DID NOT make this stuff up!
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 07:17:40 pm CDT

Previous Post

> > > Tony and co have:
> > > -Violated bioethics by cloning Thor
> >
> > Thats YOUR opinion...many of us don't happen to see the word clone and think Evil.
> >
> Did he have Thor's permission? As far as we know no. Did he use the clone to serve his own agenda? Yes, if that is not a violation of ethics than what is?

There are no "bio-ethics" for this. There just arnt any laws in place for this and if there are we dont have a clue what they are because MU has not shown us them.

> > > -Nearly started a war by unleashing the Green Goblin
> >
> > With a country that has attacked them many times...that were activated sleeper agents and killing US citizens with their spies and troops...they SHOULD outright declare war on Atlantis.
> >
> Did Congress approve of the action? Where was this shown or mentioned? Umm????? Stark does not have the right to start wars. Attacking a diplomat who is being allowed to speak is an act of war on Stark's part. It was never his decision to make. Congress did not approve the war. Did the President give permission????? If not that Stark took matters into his own hands and nearly started a war that he had no right to do.

He was given powers by congress and the president for dealing with the situation. Whether he went beyond them or not is unknown...what we do know is it resolved the Civil War much faster and with much less bloodshed. So it may or may not be legal...but if it prevented countless deaths and saved the MU it sure was ethical...oh wait I forgot you like to jump back and forth. If Stark does something illegal but ethical he is BAD. If he does something legal but questionably ethical he is BAD.

But when the anti-reggers do these thinsg they are GOOD. Gotcha!...lol

> > > -Manipulated the populace in a negative way
> >
> > That was Cap...Tony supported the "peoples" decisions...thr anti-regs tried to make "normals" into lemmings with their propoganda
> >
> He nearly started a war.

Whereas Cap and his DID start a war...Civil War to be exact.

> > > -Thrown people in prison without a trial
> >
> > Yes in preparation for a trial...would you have prefered they tag and release them back into the wild?
> >
> This may be due to screw-ups in the continuity of civil war. The issue I read discussion this didn't mention a trial. The excuse was they were in the Negative Zone.

The main title...not the spin off-titles stated they were a temporary holding cell for them...this was also later backed up by Tom B's statements...JMS had this 180degress about face and may be the cause of the confusion.

> > > -Profitted from a war they helped set-up
> >
> > Actually all that money was used to repair the damage and to set up training facilities...it was clarified Tony did not "personally" profit from this.
> >
> He owns the company that just happens to make a new helicarrier among other things?

They have actually stated he has stepped down from leading the company...and that he has not made any money from this...make of that what you will.

> > > -Enslaved and unleashed murderous super-villains
> >
> > They aer not enslaved...and if you mean TBolts for the 80 millionth time...Tony has nothing to do with there current state.
> >
> He controls the Green Goblin and since he controls th Fifty State Initive which they are part of he controls them.

The TBolts are NOT under his control...go ask Marvel and Tom B. about it...it is completely under the control of a different govt. agency...until you get them to say otehrwise your simply wrong here.

> > > -Arguable responsible for the death of Bill Foster either as negilgant homicide or manslaughter
> >
> > Let's see ... Tony legally enforcing the law...armed vigilanties resisting the law, after they were asked to talk rather then fight. Analogous to police trying to talk to bank robbers...and the orbbers open fire and one of them dies in the resulting shootout...nope...sorry thats not the definition of homicide or manslaughter.
> >
> And if it had been the police there would have been an investigation and Civil Rights Groups screaming for blood. Stark unleashed a highly volitile weapon upon a battle field that would have killed everyone there. Stark or the REAL Thor would have known how to take Foster out without killing him. The thing as far as we can tell wasn't even sentient.

He used a "tool" backed up by the govt...just like Bill Foster used a tool "Pyms Growth serum" and Cap's shield etc...in a battle he made sure no people other then combatants would be around for. Tony would get a medal for being the first guy to manage to make a super hero battle of such scale take place where no civilians were endangered..only illegally acting rebels that refused to talk.

As for using Clor...I dont like the idea myself...I understand why they would use him though...and Tony trusted that Reed knew how to handle Clor...why wouldnt you normally trust the guy who can outthing Galactus?
> >
> > > -Covered-up the death of a student and perhaps set the whole thing up to acquire some technology
> >
> > What do you know as facts here...you seem to just assume here
> >
> Note at the beginning I said Stark and co. and I concluded with a message that I know Stark wasn't responsible for everything. However, The fact they did cover-up or at least tried to in the training camp is a fact.

Who ...what...where...when...again? Seriously and CO...so we can link and CO of any law breakers with the anti-reggers side as well. Here a similarily misleading statement....

What laws have the anti-reggers..Nazi's and Company NOT broken? There all nice and grouped up like your statement.

> > > -Allowed a mentally unstable power house into stressful situations and recruited a known sociopath on the same team
> >
> > You never made a post about Cap's original recruitment of him...but thats ok right, because you lked the idea then and hey Cap can be a dictator if he wants right?
> >
> I never brought up the Sentry being on Cap's team because I didn't read New Avengers back then. The fact is the Sentry is mentally unstable. Along with Ares' very, very shaky past.

Well it was done at Cap's urging. Ares may be shaky...but the Avengers have always been about 2nd chances...hawkeye...Scarlet Witch and Pietro after being on a team with a mass murdering psycho of the era Magneto...Ares is just par for the course...another ex-villian trying to change his ways being given a 2nd chance.

> > > -Stole the Terrigan Mists from the Inhumans and refused to return it possible starting another war
> >
> > Who exactly stole it and who said they could not have it back?
> >
> Quicksilver stole it, the U. S. government got the mists from him and refused to give it back to Black Bolt. Instead they are using the mists to experiment on humans to try and give them superpowers.

Ok...so? Why would the govt give it back? They didnt give back the nuclear technology they gained from Nazi scientists. I can totally see why the govt. wouldnt give it back...and totally see how they feel justified in not giving it back to anti-reggers-nazis-and company (and like you...when you refute that BBolt is not a nazi...I can now say...well I said "and Company" \:P )

> > > -Plotting the overthrow of forgein governments that oppose the current U. S. Policy
> >
> > Who...what..which...where...when?
> >
> IIRC, it was in the latest Black Panther issue where two people at the state department were discussing the Panther and one talked about making Wakanda an example of what happens to those who oppose the U. S.

Is Hudlin's stuff even in continuity?

> Stakr also in the Civil War: Battle Files report when discussing how the different nations were dealing with their superhuman populations mentions reigme change in Atlantis.

It was an assesment of danger and Atlantis's unstable past...did he say they need to be conqured somewhere I did not see?

> > > Did I miss anything?
> > >
> > > P. S. I know all of this isn't Tony Stark, only about half of it. That is why I said Tony and Co. however he is the primary leader and has his hand in just about everything some way or another.
> >
> > Yeah and the aliens kidnapped you and used all horrible types of probes on you as well too....right?
>
> Explain something to me. How is it to you Stark can do no wrong, but when Hercules defends himself from Clor and destroys it you accuse Hercules of murder?

He attacked a helpless enemy on his knees with a death blow. He wasnt defending himself when Clor wasnt even try to engage him.

Secondly I didnt say Herc was even wrong I said you..cant say the pro-reg side is evil and using a childlike creature for their nefarious purposes and then cheer when Herc kills that same child in a fit of anger.

I have no problem if Herc destroyed a lifeless robotic machine with no soul...but then you also can't paint the pro-reg side as these evil manipulators of a childs soul.

It's one or the other.

> > > > Tony and co have:
> > > > -Violated bioethics by cloning Thor
> > >
> > > Thats YOUR opinion...many of us don't happen to see the word clone and think Evil.
> > >
> > Did he have Thor's permission? As far as we know no. Did he use the clone to serve his own agenda? Yes, if that is not a violation of ethics than what is?
>
> There are no "bio-ethics" for this. There just arnt any laws in place for this and if there are we dont have a clue what they are because MU has not shown us them.
>
You dodged the question. Stark violated Thor's trust and unleasehed a monster. If that is not unethical that what praytell is?

> > > > -Nearly started a war by unleashing the Green Goblin
> > >

>
> He was given powers by congress and the president for dealing with the situation. Whether he went beyond them or not is unknown...what we do know is it resolved the Civil War much faster and with much less bloodshed. So it may or may not be legal...but if it prevented countless deaths and saved the MU it sure was ethical...oh wait I forgot you like to jump back and forth. If Stark does something illegal but ethical he is BAD. If he does something legal but questionably ethical he is BAD.
>
> But when the anti-reggers do these thinsg they are GOOD. Gotcha!...lol
>
You are making things up. The constitution limits the power to declare war to Congress. The President can start wars by sending in military forces, but when was it outlined Stark had that power. Dealing with the sleeper agents would have been dealing with the threat. Attacking an ambassador was beyond his authority. Unless your saying Stark now outranks the president?

Also, we have no prove Stark has prevented some disaster and that his way was the only way. How many times has the Earth been on the verge of blowing up when it is suddenly stopped? This entire episode is based on some "vision" Stark had and calculations Reed has made. Both open to countless variables. Did either bother to use their time machines? Did they consult a psychic? Not that I've heard of. Bascially it is all a guess. You think was Stark has done is ethical, but you think him violating his friendshp with Thor is not wrong? Interesting. Stark's orignal motivation was ethical, but the means he has used to get their have been wrong nearly every step of the way. Were some of the necessary? Perhaps. Does that autumatically excuse everything? Besides, we have no prove it has prevented the future Stark claim to know was going to happen. The way things are going the same future is going to come about, just in a different way. If not through the Hulk than through the Superhuman arms race Stark has started.

> > > > -Manipulated the populace in a negative way
> > >
> > > That was Cap...Tony supported the "peoples" decisions...thr anti-regs tried to make "normals" into lemmings with their propoganda
> > >
> > He nearly started a war.
>
> Whereas Cap and his DID start a war...Civil War to be exact.
>
Cap attempted to avoid a war. It was SHIELD that drew first blood. Did Cap go about it the wrong way? Yes Did Millar write Cap like a rookie? Yes.

> > > > -Thrown people in prison without a trial
> > >
> > > Yes in preparation for a trial...would you have prefered they tag and release them back into the wild?
> > >
> > This may be due to screw-ups in the continuity of civil war. The issue I read discussion this didn't mention a trial. The excuse was they were in the Negative Zone.
>
> The main title...not the spin off-titles stated they were a temporary holding cell for them...this was also later backed up by Tom B's statements...JMS had this 180degress about face and may be the cause of the confusion.
>
There were a number of inconsistances in Civil War.

> > > > -Profitted from a war they helped set-up
> > >

>
> > > > -Enslaved and unleashed murderous super-villains
> > >
> > > They aer not enslaved...and if you mean TBolts for the 80 millionth time...Tony has nothing to do with there current state.
> > >
From what I've read it was stated he does control them. Of course, this may just be more screw-ups from editorial.

> > He controls the Green Goblin and since he controls th Fifty State Initive which they are part of he controls them.
>
> The TBolts are NOT under his control...go ask Marvel and Tom B. about it...it is completely under the control of a different govt. agency...until you get them to say otehrwise your simply wrong here.
>
Which has more credence, the comics or interviews?

> > > > -Arguable responsible for the death of Bill Foster either as negilgant homicide or manslaughter
> > >
> > > Let's see ... Tony legally enforcing the law...armed vigilanties resisting the law, after they were asked to talk rather then fight. Analogous to police trying to talk to bank robbers...and the orbbers open fire and one of them dies in the resulting shootout...nope...sorry thats not the definition of homicide or manslaughter.
> > >
> > And if it had been the police there would have been an investigation and Civil Rights Groups screaming for blood. Stark unleashed a highly volitile weapon upon a battle field that would have killed everyone there. Stark or the REAL Thor would have known how to take Foster out without killing him. The thing as far as we can tell wasn't even sentient.
>
> He used a "tool" backed up by the govt...just like Bill Foster used a tool "Pyms Growth serum" and Cap's shield etc...in a battle he made sure no people other then combatants would be around for. Tony would get a medal for being the first guy to manage to make a super hero battle of such scale take place where no civilians were endangered..only illegally acting rebels that refused to talk.
>
There is a difference. That "tool" would have killed everyone there. They unleashed a weapon that "severely" malfunctioned and then tried it again because they were messing around with things they didn't understand. And I highly doubt Stark would have been given a medal for the deaths of those individuals. This was not a true civil war. At best it was a police action.

>> > >

>
> Who ...what...where...when...again? Seriously and CO...so we can link and CO of any law breakers with the anti-reggers side as well. Here a similarily misleading statement....
>
If I wanted to focus on the anti-reggers the thread would have been about them. Stark and co are the ones who claim to wear the mantle of righteousness, but everytime you turn around there are doing somethign worse.

> What laws have the anti-reggers..Nazi's and Company NOT broken? There all nice and grouped up like your statement.
>
THANK YOU for fulfilling Godwin's Law. Since when were they Nazis. From what I understand the Nazis singled out a specific ethnic group. The Registration act singles out a specific group. Wow, how come no one ever noticed that before??? *eek*

Some of the anti-reggers just wanted to be left alone, not to become the latest government weapon.

mentally unstable. Along with Ares' very, very shaky past.

>
> > > > -Stole the Terrigan Mists from the Inhumans and refused to return it possible starting another war
> > >
> > > Who exactly stole it and who said they could not have it back?
> > >
> > Quicksilver stole it, the U. S. government got the mists from him and refused to give it back to Black Bolt. Instead they are using the mists to experiment on humans to try and give them superpowers.
>
> Ok...so? Why would the govt give it back? They didnt give back the nuclear technology they gained from Nazi scientists. I can totally see why the govt. wouldnt give it back...and totally see how they feel justified in not giving it back to anti-reggers-nazis-and company (and like you...when you refute that BBolt is not a nazi...I can now say...well I said "and Company" \:P )
>
Boy, you sure do like making things up. The Nazis were a defeated enemy. The Terrigan mists was a substance that belonged to the Inhumans and the U. S. is merely using as part of the Superhuman arms race. By the way, when did Black Bolt involve himself in the Civil War? As far as I know he and the rest of the Inhumans stayed on the moon.

S.
>
> Is Hudlin's stuff even in continuity?
>
Why wouldn't it be? It is about the Black Panther and Storm being part of the FF when in the FF's own title they are members.

> > Stakr also in the Civil War: Battle Files report when discussing how the different nations were dealing with their superhuman populations mentions reigme change in Atlantis.
>
> It was an assesment of danger and Atlantis's unstable past...did he say they need to be conqured somewhere I did not see?
>
He wants a regime change for favorable to the U. S. If such a removal comes by force is there really much of a difference? Is a regime change sometimes necessary? In some cases, yes. Is Stark merely aggrevating a situation he has no authority concerning? yes.

> > > > Did I miss anything?
> > > >

> >
> > Explain something to me. How is it to you Stark can do no wrong, but when Hercules defends himself from Clor and destroys it you accuse Hercules of murder?
>
> He attacked a helpless enemy on his knees with a death blow. He wasnt defending himself when Clor wasnt even try to engage him.
>
Helpless, Clor tried numerous times to kill anybody he came across. Thor has also demonstrated the ability to fight on even when severely injured. Clor turned it into a battle to the death. Is Hercules supposed to take the change that it won't kill him when his back is turned?

> Secondly I didnt say Herc was even wrong I said you..cant say the pro-reg side is evil and using a childlike creature for their nefarious purposes and then cheer when Herc kills that same child in a fit of anger.
>
> I have no problem if Herc destroyed a lifeless robotic machine with no soul...but then you also can't paint the pro-reg side as these evil manipulators of a childs soul.
>
The Pro-reg side created it. Based on everything it seems to have had no free will and was just a weapon for the pro-regs. If it did have some free will than they are the ones guilty for putting it in that situation.





Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software