The Last Homely House
General => Council of Cobra => Topic started by: Gil-Estel on January 20, 2009, 09:29:06 AM
-
Congratulations with your new president, and let's hope that the US will take their responsibility, that they will lead the way, humble, in the true spirit of the founding fathers.....
-
I am very impressed with his speech and I am very hopeful that he will live up to what he has said.
I think its great to see a nation that celebrates its leaders, I mean they were CHANTING his name! Can you imagine people in the UK chanting "Gordon, Gordon, Gordon..." didnt think so.
-
The President of the United States is a very different role to the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The President is the Head of State whereas in Britain that role belongs to the monarchy. The Prime Minister is merely the highest ranked civil servant in the country. Its very much viewed more as a job like any other unlike the president who is much more of a figurehead.
On the subject of the innauguration I absolutely loved the speech. Very inspiring. The rest of the world is very hopeful for Obama. You don't know how much we have longed for a President who respects us and seeks to work with us rather than defy and dominate us.
-
Don't get too swept up in the magic of Obama, remember, he's a politician. Politicians make big promises and rarely keep them.
-
Don't get too swept up in the magic of Obama, remember, he's a politician. Politicians make big promises and rarely keep them.
:cheers: O0 :gp:
-
That's why I stated: I hope....maybe at this moment there is nothing more I hope for...Than the US to be led by common sense and great awareness
-
Wow how did someone so young become so cynical? Try having so Hope and positivity. Even if you don't have faith that Obama knows what he is doing have faith in Gods wisdom cos he is the one who has placed Obama where he is.
-
Really? For which State is God a delegate? ;)
-
the right one.
-
God is on everyones side. I believe that God is in control of all things and that if Obama has been placed in power it is because God wanted him there.
-
the right one.
AWESOME answer! :D Have a gp.
-
I try.
-
And who would've known? Sometimes, you succeed! ;)
-
historic moment: Obama is the first President with open ties to domestic terrorists and open racists.
-
Blah blah blah I'm a sore loser. ;)
Obama won, he's the president now. Deal with it. And support the man, I mean, he IS the one that's supposed to save your sorry behinds from the HUGE economic crisis, so I'd show a little more faith. Heck, I hate my president's GUTS, but I'll still support the man when he's doing his job.
-
I will not support a Marxist nor will I support a man with open connections with terrorists. Stop blindly following Obama and start questioning his decisions. If any other presidential candidate had open connections with terrorists, the media would be in a frenzy. But the media has been for Obama the entire election, and refused to report the full story. This is why I will never support Barack Hussein Obama.
-
Agree with Lurtzy.
-
Wow, great thing you're not in Congress, so he doesn't actually NEED your support, since he has already been elected. I pray that in a few years you'll both look back to these words in deep regret.
-
Well, like you said, you support your pres. when he's doing his job - I'll have to wait and see what kind of job Obama does before I'll put my faith in him.
-
Ah, the communists are coming! Hide away in your panic rooms and let us all burn the Communist Manifest!! Well do the latter one first, otherwise the panic room will see a lot of panic!
Seriously, why are you so afraid of a little social wind....man, if there is any Christianity to be found in the US, a social wind would have been embraced! I can not emphasise this enough, stick to your stubborn attitude of neglection, keep close to your self hard earned money, be afraid of sharing, oh no, even worse, that the government is going to decide how your money is being spend, what a brutal crime!!!! Keep yours, screw the world.....
Edit
Sorry, this has been covered before, but it really annoys me. Liberal is evil, at least liberal press is, socialism is evil...all is evil. Seriously, give the man a chance, wait for him to work and judge him afterwards, if you really must. Can't blame a man for dreaming, especially when those dreams involve a better world, for all to enjoy!
-
The government should not have the power to dictate how my money is spent. It's not being afraid of sharing, it's more along the line of each person gets to pick how much they want to share.
-
Wow, great thing you're not in Congress, so he doesn't actually NEED your support, since he has already been elected. I pray that in a few years you'll both look back to these words in deep regret.
Somehow I'm not gonna be chummy with a guy who is buddies with a terrorist.
-
But the media has been for Obama the entire election, and refused to report the full story. This is why I will never support Barack Hussein Obama.
Uh... maybe you weren't watching for like the first eight months when Hillary's candidacy was "in the bag" and a guarantee for the media. Obama never stood a chance as far as they were concerned.
Oh well. I still think all of you voted ignorantly since today wasn't Ron Paul's inauguration.
-
Lurtzy I'm with you on almost all your points except your fatalism I don't think Obama is a wise leader BUT I don't think he is stupid nor do I think him to be a terrorist however his underworld connections deserve more investigation also the fact that he himself has not provided an answer to the charges of these "questionable" relationships means unfortunately I cannot and will not trust him as our leader that being said i shall wash my hands of this business and depart for Deck Check to look araond for awhile.
G'day Mates,
Your humble commander of a hundred,
Centurion
-
The government should not have the power to dictate how my money is spent. It's not being afraid of sharing, it's more along the line of each person gets to pick how much they want to share.
Dude, technically, without the government... no money.
I do see where your getting at though, I didn't want O'bama to win either, but he is president now, and if he screws up, he get's impeached, doesn't really effect us that much.
By the way, did anyone catch Obama when he studdered twice on his oath... Hilarious! :lol:
Though I did enjoy the speech.
-
Centurion, I neither called Obama stupid nor a terrorist, but merely commented on his association with terrorists.
-
Centurion, I neither called Obama stupid nor a terrorist, but merely commented on his association with terrorists.
To which, AGAIN, I'm forced to reply: George W. Bush had connections with a lot of dubious characters associated with terrorism, not to mention that whole stuff about oil companies. Sorry to point out AGAIN, but it seems some people tend to forget this.
-
Ok...
I guess no one did see him studder...
I will simply remain the invisible newb :suspect:
-
I did. Pretty funny since he's a great public speaker and all. Guess anybody would be nervous in that situation though.
Oh well. I still think all of you voted ignorantly since today wasn't Ron Paul's inauguration.
Cute. Menace made a joke.
-
Yea, I definitely wouldn't have been able to do it, but then again, I probably wouldn't even want to be president.
-
Warning: ranting toward the end of the post.
Last few paragraphs are a bit of attempt at conflict preemption. I'd appreciate people reading them, but they're not really anything that I haven't posted before.
Ok...
I guess no one did see him studder...
I will simply remain the invisible newb :suspect:
I only noticed once... but to be fair, that one wasn't his fault. Roberts accidentally switched the order of two words in the oath the first time he gave it to Obama to repeat. The change wasn't one that would make any sort of difference in the oath itself, just throw Obama off when repeating something like that in front of over a million people.
Blah blah blah I'm a sore loser. ;)
Obama won, he's the president now. Deal with it. And support the man, I mean, he IS the one that's supposed to save your sorry behinds from the HUGE economic crisis, so I'd show a little more faith. Heck, I hate my president's GUTS, but I'll still support the man when he's doing his job.
THANK YOU, my good sir. Thank you. :gp:
historic moment: Obama is the first President with open ties to domestic terrorists and open racists.
Uh, no, not really.... Definitely not on racism, anyway, and as far as domestic terrorism, well.... depending on how loose your definition of terrorist is, you can tack Ulysses S. Grant on the list for that little "Sherman" incident during the war....
Look, guys, I don't agree with a lot of Obama's ideas, but he's legitimately president. The United States does NOT need more polarization right now. Criticism of Obama that serves no constructive purpose is, at this point, out of place. Not that you "can't" do that; but that, quite frankly, it's not helpful for anyone or anything. Badmouthing him, no matter how much you dislike him, will accomplish nothing at this point but generate more division. If you have criticism that can foster a discussion, an exchange of ideas, or even an attempt at persuading another person of your ideas is great, and worthwhile. But just gunning at him because you don't like him (even if the dislike is justified) is, IMHO, out of place, not to mention a logical fallacy. For example, let's take someone that EVERYONE will dislike:
1. According to Hitler, national security is important.
2. Hitler is a bad person.
3. Therefore, we must avoid all national security at all costs. We must purge national security from our land. National security is evil.
*coughcough*
Okay. A bit ridiculous, no? Even though Hitler was slaughtering millions in the name of national security, and using that national security to carry out unspeakable crimes, national security is not, itself, evil.
Well, let's modify the situation a bit.
1. According to President Obama, social programs can be helpful.
2. President Obama is a bad person (just for the sake of the parallel, let's assume this....)
3. Therefore all socialism must be avoided at all costs, blah, blah, blah.
Look, guys. WHY IS SOCIALISM EVIL?!?!?
No, I'm not pro-socialism. I've already explained this whole deal before. I'm definitely capitalist.
No, absolute socialism doesn't work. Yes, the government should have extremely limited power. Yes, the government already tries to control more stuff than it legitimately should, blah, blah, blah. BUT. some of you guys defend Capitalism as though it were the holy institution of God.
Seriously. Capitalism, Free Markets, et cetera are economic systems, and relatively NEW ones at that. I don't exactly see capitalism in the Bible. AND I have yet to see ANY examples ANYWHERE in history where there was a truly and absolutely free market, and it WORKED. SERIOUSLY. If ANYONE can give me ONE GOOD EXAMPLE, I'll give them a :gp:. Socialism is NOT EVIL. Ineffective, well, that depends on the circumstance. I would say in general, yes. As a base economic system, definitely. Based on a false worldview? Well, because of my beliefs, I would argue yes, corruption of man, and whatnot, but whatever.
I'm not saying that I agree with Obama's agenda, but just because he's president does not mean that we have to treat him the same way a LOT of people treated Bush. C'mon, Lurtzy. Your comments are bordering on exactly the same thing a lot of democrats were throwing at Bush. Yeah, Obama's got problems. But there's a difference between raging at his problems and constructively dealing with them. And at this point, questioning his qualifications and character for being president is a moot point. He IS president. Question his present decisions, anticipate possible future issues to deal with based on past choices, but don't obsess over what he has done just for the purpose of tearing him down. Doesn't help anything.
AND WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH HIS MIDDLE NAME?!? (At this point, I myself am rating. Don't remember anyone here digging at him for his middle name.)
"Hussein" is an Arabic name meaning "Victory." It's a very NICE name! Not to mention that it's a very common name in, let us say, certain other cultures. So the guy's got a name related to part of his heritage. Does that mean my cousin-in-law, a guy with the middle name Cnut, should change his name? I mean, King Cnut was pretty violent! Yeah, the people ended up loving him later on, but still! Does that mean that people named "Richard" should change their names because of Richard III? Ha! Try justifying yourself for being named after Richard III!!!
ARGH!
Okay. Last thing: Conflict pre-emption.
Let's try NOT to turn this into a hostile discussion. My above post contained ranting and was not meant to be hostile to anyone. Even in ranting, I tried to provide justification for my arguments/complaints/et cetera. And I tried to keep them constructive. I'm not always going to succeed at that, but whatever. The last thing we want is for this forum to break out into hostilities, which can happen easier than people realize. SO, I'm going to request (request, mind you) that, if you don't have anything useful to say (not necessarily nice), then don't say it. And put forth an effort to be both reasonable and objective.
Me, due to a very long story, I try as hard as I can to acknowledge legitimate points even if I disagree with them. Just because something is legitimate or reasonable doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but please at least take the time to realize that, even assuming that you're right, that doesn't mean the person who disagrees with you is illogical, irrational, or just plain stupid. Try to think as objectively as possible, and be aware of other people's point of view. sometimes, they might just see something more clearly than you do, even if you don't realize it.
I, personally, believe completely in the existence of objective truth, so don';t think I'm going all relativist on you guys. But I've found that looking at things from other peoples' POVs (or as close as I can figure them) and comparing them with your own can help you realize things about them, yourself, and others, as well as help you form stronger, and more accurate beliefs and opinions. And doing this will result in you discovering things that are sometimes uncomfortable. I recently had a few little personal revelations, resulting a a kind of "quarter-life crisis." (nowhere near mid-life yet....) Anyway, all this is an attempt at conflict pre-emption.
I'm done now....
-
Much applause and some gold for that Agent Drake.
-
He isn't much of a dancer. Take a look at the inaugural balls. :P
-
Ok, so Jeremiah Wright is not racist? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw&feature=related) William Ayers is not a terrorist? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g) Look, I am bringing these people up because they are associated with Obama It shows that Obama has poor judgement, and now that he is the president, it is even more frightening that he has been associated with these people for so long. It's terrifying what he might do in office, especially with these despicable people influencing him.
-
Centurion, I neither called Obama stupid nor a terrorist, but merely commented on his association with terrorists.
To which, AGAIN, I'm forced to reply: George W. Bush had connections with a lot of dubious characters associated with terrorism, not to mention that whole stuff about oil companies. Sorry to point out AGAIN, but it seems some people tend to forget this.
been through this Lurtzy.
AD hits the nail on the head. I'm on another forum where...well I'll let you see it for yourself
http://www.dragonsinourmidst.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7267&page=18
go the bottom. the very bottom. read the last post. I almost cried.
-
That's a very unnecessary song.
-
The point really wasn't that Obama is good - it's just that people before him have had the same (or similar) problems.
Seriously, I don't know what I'm going to do when I vote - campaign promises obviously mean nothing. Names mean nothing. Race means nothing. In the end, even a lot of a candidate's ideals don't make a lot of difference - it all comes down to what Congress - and the American public at large - will let them do. Sure, maybe some of the people Obama is "connected" to aren't good people. No one has a perfectly good resume. What it ALL comes down to, REALLY, is what he does now that he's in office. And he hasn't DONE anything yet.
I, at least, respect him a little bit for bravery. He's taking this much crap before he even sets foot in the White House and yet he can still claim that he can make America a great nation again. I don't care how impossible it seems - we need a little bit of that attitude right now.
Maybe you can rub it in my face when Obama hands the nation over to terrorists or the economy fails completely and we hit another Great Depression. But until any of that actually happens... have a little hope, will you? You of little faith...
I think some people would agree with me if I said we're all in God's hands. Some wouldn't. But heck, I believe so. And even if this world goes to #$&*@!, that just means heaven's all the closer.
-
Ok, so Jeremiah Wright is not racist? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw&feature=related) William Ayers is not a terrorist? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g) Look, I am bringing these people up because they are associated with Obama It shows that Obama has poor judgement, and now that he is the president, it is even more frightening that he has been associated with these people for so long. It's terrifying what he might do in office, especially with these despicable people influencing him.
Like el said-- the point isn't that Obama doesn't have ties to Wright and Ayers, but that other presidents have also had similarly... questionable connections. I was merely pointing out that connections with racism and/or let us say "combatants of questionable tactics" (terrorists, slash-and-burn, et cetera) are not exactly new to the White House.
Besides. As I understand it, the connections with Ayers were more along the lines of "Yeah, I knew him, and I would talk to him at times about politics." Doesn;t mean that Obama is a terrorist. doesn;t mean that he agreed with Ayers or his methods. Heck, I bet it would be interesting to talk politics with bin Laden. Safe? Maybe not, but it would still be interesting. Agree with him? Approve of him? No, and no. Still.
Don;t get me wrong. I'm not an Obama supporter in the sense that I follow him blindly, or that I voted for him, or that I agree with his ideas. I certainly hope he will be a good president, and he has something which the US could use right now: charisma, and a great talent for speaking. the US has problems, and one of the biggest at the moment is morale. Whether the morale drop is justified or not (I actually would argue that it's more cause than effect in relation to many of the other problems the US is facing) it's there. And Obama can definitely help get us out of it.
It's a very dangerous talent, of course. I mean, Hitler had that in spades, and look what that caused. (No, I'm not saying Obama is the next Hitler. I'm saying his gift for speech and charisma is dangerous.)
Point being, I hope he'll be a good leader. Doesn't mean I agree with anything he stands for. doesn't mean I agree with nothing he stands for. Doesn't mean ANYTHING beyond that he's president, and I hope he's a good leader.
-
The things about his speech I absolutely loved is the way he was referring to the start of the US. That they stepped forwards in times of trouble, that the US was the land were everyone was welcome, and were to be treated equal and free. I liked the way he seemed humble in taking up the glove. He seems to me an idealist, but also one that is aware of the problems ahead and the difficulties. The way he filled in the fact that the US has a leading role in the world, because whether we like it or not (us being the rest of the world :D) the US has got a leading role. And I'm glad to see he is willing to face the responsibility and pointing out that they are allies, no foes.
All and all I really liked the speech, it was inspirering, hopeful, and AD I have to agree, he is a gifted speaker, in which lies a danger of exaggerating. Still, I would like to give him the benefit of doubt!
And to see his actions concerning Guantanamo Bay only added to the hope I feel when it comes to Obama! Put your actions where your mouth is...
-
I give him the benefit of the doubt as well, and I share AD's sentiments on the issue.
-
The fact that he's giving terrorists trials here in the US is beyond anything any other president would ever do.
-
why is that such a bad thing? BTW I allways thought that in our 'modern' societies, everyone is considered to be innocent till proven otherwise...
-
The fact that he's giving terrorists trials here in the US is beyond anything any other president would ever do.
Actually... given that Congress passed the "NOPEC" bill awhile back, (one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard of) it's little surprises that Obama did something like that. Heck, at least this is arguable. NOPEC was basically an attempt to sue OPEC in the US court system for violating US laws.
Yeah. Brilliant, ya idiots. :roll:
OPEC isn't subject to US law, and they're not subject to the US courts, and they can do whatever they want to. We have no authority to subpoena them into our courts. Oh, we tried, but they just laughed at us and our idiot politicians.
See, this is why I'm a cynic. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
why is that such a bad thing? BTW I allways thought that in our 'modern' societies, everyone is considered to be innocent till proven otherwise...
Well, but the question is is whether terrorism is a civil crime or an act of war.
Much grey areas. On the one hand, if terrorism is merely a form of crime, and terrorists merely criminal networks, then it ought to be treated as a crime. On the other hand, if it's viewed as an act of war from one entity against another (ie, al-Qaeda vs the US) then the prisoners in Guantanamo (or wherever they're going now) aren't criminals in prison, they're POWs.
So... are terrorist networks to be considered political entities, criminal networks, or (my opinion) some third form of entity?
The problem of captives in fighting terrorism is a big one. They're more than civil criminals, and in many/most cases (I would presume....), weren't under US jurisdiction when captured (ir, Afghanistan, Iraq, et cetera). they are therefore (at least in those cases) not subject to United States Law (nor, it may be argued, are they protected by United States rights, whether that particular oversight should be corrected or not....). So are they civil criminals, to be tried in civil courts, or are they POWs, or are they something else?
Anyway....
-
I, personally don't like Obama, but I don't think He's gonna kill the country or nuthin'.
I believe that he won't be as good a president as Bush. I think that as soon as he starts with his so-called plan, he's gonna find out it's a lot harder than he expected. Except for the abortion part, it will most likely be easy for him to convince people, because there are a lot of citizens that think it fair.
But, abortion, no matter how you say it, is murder. Everyone is entitled to their own lives whether they have an issue or not, they still have the right to be born and have a life as much as we do.
Like el said-- the point isn't that Obama doesn't have ties to Wright and Ayers, but that other presidents have also had similarly... questionable connections. I was merely pointing out that connections with racism and/or let us say "combatants of questionable tactics" (terrorists, slash-and-burn, et cetera) are not exactly new to the White House.
Besides. As I understand it, the connections with Ayers were more along the lines of "Yeah, I knew him, and I would talk to him at times about politics." Doesn;t mean that Obama is a terrorist. doesn;t mean that he agreed with Ayers or his methods. Heck, I bet it would be interesting to talk politics with bin Laden. Safe? Maybe not, but it would still be interesting. Agree with him? Approve of him? No, and no. Still.
Don;t get me wrong. I'm not an Obama supporter in the sense that I follow him blindly, or that I voted for him, or that I agree with his ideas. I certainly hope he will be a good president, and he has something which the US could use right now: charisma, and a great talent for speaking. the US has problems, and one of the biggest at the moment is morale. Whether the morale drop is justified or not (I actually would argue that it's more cause than effect in relation to many of the other problems the US is facing) it's there. And Obama can definitely help get us out of it.
It's a very dangerous talent, of course. I mean, Hitler had that in spades, and look what that caused. (No, I'm not saying Obama is the next Hitler. I'm saying his gift for speech and charisma is dangerous.)
Point being, I hope he'll be a good leader. Doesn't mean I agree with anything he stands for. doesn't mean I agree with nothing he stands for. Doesn't mean ANYTHING beyond that he's president, and I hope he's a good leader.
Warning: ranting toward the end of the post.
Last few paragraphs are a bit of attempt at conflict preemption. I'd appreciate people reading them, but they're not really anything that I haven't posted before.
Uh, no, not really.... Definitely not on racism, anyway, and as far as domestic terrorism, well.... depending on how loose your definition of terrorist is, you can tack Ulysses S. Grant on the list for that little "Sherman" incident during the war....
Look, guys, I don't agree with a lot of Obama's ideas, but he's legitimately president. The United States does NOT need more polarization right now. Criticism of Obama that serves no constructive purpose is, at this point, out of place. Not that you "can't" do that; but that, quite frankly, it's not helpful for anyone or anything. Badmouthing him, no matter how much you dislike him, will accomplish nothing at this point but generate more division. If you have criticism that can foster a discussion, an exchange of ideas, or even an attempt at persuading another person of your ideas is great, and worthwhile. But just gunning at him because you don't like him (even if the dislike is justified) is, IMHO, out of place, not to mention a logical fallacy. For example, let's take someone that EVERYONE will dislike:
1. According to Hitler, national security is important.
2. Hitler is a bad person.
3. Therefore, we must avoid all national security at all costs. We must purge national security from our land. National security is evil.
*coughcough*
Okay. A bit ridiculous, no? Even though Hitler was slaughtering millions in the name of national security, and using that national security to carry out unspeakable crimes, national security is not, itself, evil.
Well, let's modify the situation a bit.
1. According to President Obama, social programs can be helpful.
2. President Obama is a bad person (just for the sake of the parallel, let's assume this....)
3. Therefore all socialism must be avoided at all costs, blah, blah, blah.
Look, guys. WHY IS SOCIALISM EVIL?!?!?
No, I'm not pro-socialism. I've already explained this whole deal before. I'm definitely capitalist.
No, absolute socialism doesn't work. Yes, the government should have extremely limited power. Yes, the government already tries to control more stuff than it legitimately should, blah, blah, blah. BUT. some of you guys defend Capitalism as though it were the holy institution of God.
Seriously. Capitalism, Free Markets, et cetera are economic systems, and relatively NEW ones at that. I don't exactly see capitalism in the Bible. AND I have yet to see ANY examples ANYWHERE in history where there was a truly and absolutely free market, and it WORKED. SERIOUSLY. If ANYONE can give me ONE GOOD EXAMPLE, I'll give them a :gp:. Socialism is NOT EVIL. Ineffective, well, that depends on the circumstance. I would say in general, yes. As a base economic system, definitely. Based on a false worldview? Well, because of my beliefs, I would argue yes, corruption of man, and whatnot, but whatever.
I'm not saying that I agree with Obama's agenda, but just because he's president does not mean that we have to treat him the same way a LOT of people treated Bush. C'mon, Lurtzy. Your comments are bordering on exactly the same thing a lot of democrats were throwing at Bush. Yeah, Obama's got problems. But there's a difference between raging at his problems and constructively dealing with them. And at this point, questioning his qualifications and character for being president is a moot point. He IS president. Question his present decisions, anticipate possible future issues to deal with based on past choices, but don't obsess over what he has done just for the purpose of tearing him down. Doesn't help anything.
AND WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH HIS MIDDLE NAME?!? (At this point, I myself am rating. Don't remember anyone here digging at him for his middle name.)
"Hussein" is an Arabic name meaning "Victory." It's a very NICE name! Not to mention that it's a very common name in, let us say, certain other cultures. So the guy's got a name related to part of his heritage. Does that mean my cousin-in-law, a guy with the middle name Cnut, should change his name? I mean, King Cnut was pretty violent! Yeah, the people ended up loving him later on, but still! Does that mean that people named "Richard" should change their names because of Richard III? Ha! Try justifying yourself for being named after Richard III!!!
ARGH!
Okay. Last thing: Conflict pre-emption.
Let's try NOT to turn this into a hostile discussion. My above post contained ranting and was not meant to be hostile to anyone. Even in ranting, I tried to provide justification for my arguments/complaints/et cetera. And I tried to keep them constructive. I'm not always going to succeed at that, but whatever. The last thing we want is for this forum to break out into hostilities, which can happen easier than people realize. SO, I'm going to request (request, mind you) that, if you don't have anything useful to say (not necessarily nice), then don't say it. And put forth an effort to be both reasonable and objective.
Me, due to a very long story, I try as hard as I can to acknowledge legitimate points even if I disagree with them. Just because something is legitimate or reasonable doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but please at least take the time to realize that, even assuming that you're right, that doesn't mean the person who disagrees with you is illogical, irrational, or just plain stupid. Try to think as objectively as possible, and be aware of other people's point of view. sometimes, they might just see something more clearly than you do, even if you don't realize it.
I, personally, believe completely in the existence of objective truth, so don';t think I'm going all relativist on you guys. But I've found that looking at things from other peoples' POVs (or as close as I can figure them) and comparing them with your own can help you realize things about them, yourself, and others, as well as help you form stronger, and more accurate beliefs and opinions. And doing this will result in you discovering things that are sometimes uncomfortable. I recently had a few little personal revelations, resulting a a kind of "quarter-life crisis." (nowhere near mid-life yet....) Anyway, all this is an attempt at conflict pre-emption.
I'm done now....
Whoah... :o... =D>... :gp:
thas all I got to say.
-
abortion...now there's a huge can of worms.
thats one issue that confuses me, on one hand I'm all for fetal rights and all, but on the other I'm not comfortable with the government forcing a woman to incubate a child, undergoing all the possible complications thereof.
-
Ethical discussions are never to be taken lightly...Eventhough I'm pro-life.
But other than that, I heard McCain in the Senate and it was impressive. The people want us to work together, and want us to work. I really liked it, and there seems to be somekind of spirit.....
-
Ethical discussions are never to be taken lightly...Eventhough I'm pro-life.
But other than that, I heard McCain in the Senate and it was impressive. The people want us to work together, and want us to work. I really liked it, and there seems to be somekind of spirit.....
Yea, I like that too.
-
Wow how did someone so young become so cynical? Try having so Hope and positivity.
I'm not cynical, I'd prefer you to say 'rational'. I'm just reminding everyone to look at things logically
instead of getting swept of in the tide of 'feel-good' hope. You're basically accusing me of being cynical because I'm thinking with my brain instead of my emotions.
Even if you don't have faith that Obama knows what he is doing have faith in Gods wisdom cos he is the one who has placed Obama where he is.
I do have faith in God's providence. The fact that God placed Obama in a place of power is no guarantee that Obama will do a good job, after all, every leader in all of history has been placed in a position of power, Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Nero, Charlemagne, Edward I, Henry VIII, Montezuma, George Washington, Bismarck, Hitler, Winston Churchill, etc... The point is, there have been good and bad leaders and they were all placed their for a purpose, whether it be for good or ill.
-
I wonder how many of you American guys realise how important Obama is for the rest of the world. Not for a long time have the hopes of the entire world been placed on 1 man. You'll notice how when Bush was around, the whole of Europe was going around saying "We hate America" and since Obama's been elected everyone has suddenly changed tact to "We love America! !Woo, change! !Woo, Obama!" If Obama can do even half the things he said he was intending to do, he'll leave a much better world behind him. I want to believe in him because I think the world needs to believe in him, because for once he's actually given us hope that the world can change for the better.
People have told me to consider Obama rationally. I say, screw rationality! I can believe in whatever the heck I want, and I want, I need, to believe that Obama can change the world, that he's the genuine article, that he has good solid and ethical principles and will stick to them. Obviously I may be disappointed (though I hope I'm not and that's something to judge four years down the line, certainly not now), but I think with the world in the state that it is right now, it's far more important to have a symbol of hope than to just tear him down without even giving him a chance.
Just my :gp: :gp:
Thranduil
-
His policies say otherwise.
-
I wonder how many of you American guys realise how important Obama is for the rest of the world. Not for a long time have the hopes of the entire world been placed on 1 man. You'll notice how when Bush was around, the whole of Europe was going around saying "We hate America" and since Obama's been elected everyone has suddenly changed tact to "We love America! Woo, change! Woo, Obama!" .If Obama can do even half the things he said he was intending to do, he'll leave a much better world behind him. I want to believe in him because I think the world needs to believe in him, because for once he's actually given us hope that the world can change for the better.
I truly do not know what everyone is so exited about. Obama's just another honey-tongued liberal who appeals to the masses because he promises free welfare hand-outs deducted from the average Joe's hard-earned money.
Thran, I want to tell you something important. An overwhelming percentage of the news media of the United States is essentially a propaganda tool of the Democrat party. They are praising Obama, and telling the world that the world loves Obama because he is a Democrat, and because they know people will believe them. For 8 long years the media condemned Bush, in everything that he did, because he was a Republican. They even went so far as to tell everyone that everyone else hates Bush, and thus Bush was hated. You see, it works like this. If you are told that everyone else hates a certain person, you will probably believe it, even though those people are also being told that everyone else hates that person. Bush was hated so irrationally for the same reason that Obama is loved so irrationally; because the media told them to.
People have told me to consider Obama rationally. I say, screw rationality! I can believe in whatever the heck I want, and I want, I need, to believe that Obama can change the world, that he's the genuine article, that he has good solid and ethical principles and will stick to them. Obviously I may be disappointed (though I hope I'm not and that's something to judge four years down the line, certainly not now), but I think with the world in the state that it is right now, it's far more important to have a symbol of hope than to just tear him down without even giving him a chance.
Just my :gp: :gp:
Thranduil
The last person who had so much irrational hope vested in them was named Hitler. Adolf Hitler.
He was born to an poor civil servant in Austria. He came from relative obscurity to become
the German Chancellor, and later a totalitarian leader. He promised change, hope, and spoke of returning to Germany's roots, and rebuilding a Greater Germany. Sound familiar?
I have to ask you this: Do you agree with Obama's views? Does what you want to see match up with what you really see?
I can choose to believe in an all-powerful invisible flying NOLINKfrying pan because I want or need to, but that doesn't make it any more real. From now on, every time someone pulls this nonsense I'm going to start seeing the all-powerful NOLINKfrying pan. Who cares whether it exists, I need it to exist...
-
Gate Troll is dead on. I don't think you rest of the world realizes just how bad and slanted the Media is. You also need to realize that The Media HATES Republicans. The fact that they gave the Bush twins NO privacy and Chelsey Clinton a Ton of privacy and they will probably give Obama's girls a lot of privacy.
I have 1 question for the European guys.
"Over the last 20 years what do you think has been wrong with America. That covers 3 President's, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush."
-
The last person who had so much irrational hope vested in them was named Hitler. Adolf Hitler.
He was born to an poor civil servant in Austria. He came from relative obscurity to become
the German Chancellor, and later a totalitarian leader. He promised change, hope, and spoke of returning to Germany's roots, and rebuilding a Greater Germany. Sound familiar?
We are so not bringing Hitler into this - it's a completely different epoch and a completely different story. You know who else had so much "irrational hope": Churchill. Was he a good man? Yes, yes he was.
I have to ask you this: Do you agree with Obama's views? Does what you want to see match up with what you really see?
Yes, I'm not afraid to say that I believe with basically all of Obama's views and Obama's policies. Call me a socialist or a communist or whatever, but I wholeheartedly believe that he is the right person to lead America at this time and that George W. Bush was the worst president in recent history. And this is not irrational, this is looking at the evidence and the policies and weighing it up.
-
So keeping the USA safe is being a bad president?
You must understand that I do not think that he was the best president ever (I actually disagree with him on many issues), but he has done a good job protecting us from terrorists, and it seems that everybody forgets that.
-
So keeping the USA safe is being a bad president?
Oh so it's okay to keep the USA safe by starting and promoting wars all across the world leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent people and maybe a handful of terrorists that will simply get martyred and replaced by willing recruits united in their hatred of America? You can't fight terrorists with war, it doesn't work! "War on Terror" is a meaningless statement because terrorists don't fight wars. Military tactics simply don't hold water against people who won't fight you openhanded. Okay, I suppose his approach had to be tried, but I think it's getting proved time and time again that it's the wrong approach. Surely it's time for something else, isn't it?
-
The problem is that the terrorists often use tactics that put them in places that civilians are. Take Israel for example: Terrorists were shooting missiles into their country, so Israel reacted by bombing the terrorists. It was not their fault that the civilians died, but rather the fault of the terrorists. I wonder which side the media picked, though.
-
The last person who had so much irrational hope vested in them was named Hitler. Adolf Hitler.
He was born to an poor civil servant in Austria. He came from relative obscurity to become
the German Chancellor, and later a totalitarian leader. He promised change, hope, and spoke of returning to Germany's roots, and rebuilding a Greater Germany. Sound familiar?
We are so not bringing Hitler into this - it's a completely different epoch and a completely different story. You know who else had so much "irrational hope": Churchill. Was he a good man? Yes, yes he was.
First, I'm not bringing Hitler into this, I'm simply making a point. Second, millions of Brits didn't line up in front if Churchill and shout 'Hail Churchill'.
-
Which TOTALLY neuters your first sentence of "I'm not bringing Hitler into this". I mean, seriously, if you're "just making a point", I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you failed miseably, since Thranduil's rebutal WAS legit and DID adress your "point", so that you had to go down to "Hail Hitler".
Oh, and btw, I'm sorry but I don't see the SLIGHTEST problem in "Hailing" your leader, I think people (and mostly north-americans, of all people) need to learn to judge stuff, and to separate stuff, specially.
-
Which TOTALLY neuters your first sentence of "I'm not bringing Hitler into this". I mean, seriously, if you're "just making a point", I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you failed miseably, since Thranduil's rebutal WAS legit and DID adress your "point", so that you had to go down to "Hail Hitler".
Oh, and btw, I'm sorry but I don't see the SLIGHTEST problem in "Hailing" your leader, I think people (and mostly north-americans, of all people) need to learn to judge stuff, and to separate stuff, specially.
I'm not making Hitler the main point, I'm using Hitler as an example of a person that was irrationally followed.
There is no problem with 'hailing' your leader; there is however a problem with something like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reichsparteitagnov1935.jpg
I was just using Hitler as an example. Are you happy now?
-
Maybe people do "believe in" Obama irrationally. I'll give you that. There's a lot of hype for this guy that probably isn't true.
GT, what specifically do you not like about Obama? I mean, we can go back and forth with Hitler-arguments, I'm sure, but talk policy.
And yes, I'm aware that what he claims he's going to do isn't what he's gonna do %100. But you can't hate a person because he could be a liar. That's irrational.
And mean.
Are you religious at all, GT? It's off topic but I'm wondering. You seem to have beef with misplaced faith.
-
And his plans for actually sticking to the Millinium Plan, to reduce hunger, illeterates and so on in the world, his plan to actually do something about environmental issues, maybe it is irrational, but it is another sound, and an important one.
Please, don't compare him with Hitler, for 1, following Hitler wasn't irrational at all, please get in to the stuff before judging. Germany in those days hit rock-bottom and were willing to follow anyone who would take them back on top after the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty. He made it work, was making a diiference and helped Germany back on their feet. The greatest difference is the point of exit. Where are we heading for, and those points are extremely different.
Bush protected you from terrorists? At what price? Privacy isn't what it once was. And this is not judgement, this is a sincere wondering? Was there a constant threat or was the constant code red/orange a true one, or was it made up, to back up his plans? Again, sincere wondering.
Israel, well, with great strength comes great responsibility. If I, as a teacher decide to beat up a pupil because he was calling me names and gave my car flat tires, would everyone say: well, he had it coming, he shouldn't be so annoying? No, and I'm aware of the difficulties in the Middle East, but Israel must be aware of their responsibility. Hitting UN aid and stating it to be an accident is not to be taken lightly.
-
So keeping the USA safe is being a bad president?
Oh so it's okay to keep the USA safe by starting and promoting wars all across the world leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent people and maybe a handful of terrorists that will simply get martyred and replaced by willing recruits united in their hatred of America? You can't fight terrorists with war, it doesn't work! "War on Terror" is a meaningless statement because terrorists don't fight wars. Military tactics simply don't hold water against people who won't fight you openhanded. Okay, I suppose his approach had to be tried, but I think it's getting proved time and time again that it's the wrong approach. Surely it's time for something else, isn't it?
I agree Thranduil's opinion to 100 %.
-
And his plans for actually sticking to the Millinium Plan, to reduce hunger, illeterates and so on in the world, his plan to actually do something about environmental issues, maybe it is irrational, but it is another sound, and an important one.
Please, don't compare him with Hitler, for 1, following Hitler wasn't irrational at all, please get in to the stuff before judging. Germany in those days hit rock-bottom and were willing to follow anyone who would take them back on top after the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty. He made it work, was making a diiference and helped Germany back on their feet. The greatest difference is the point of exit. Where are we heading for, and those points are extremely different.
Bush protected you from terrorists? At what price? Privacy isn't what it once was. And this is not judgement, this is a sincere wondering? Was there a constant threat or was the constant code red/orange a true one, or was it made up, to back up his plans? Again, sincere wondering.
Israel, well, with great strength comes great responsibility. If I, as a teacher decide to beat up a pupil because he was calling me names and gave my car flat tires, would everyone say: well, he had it coming, he shouldn't be so annoying? No, and I'm aware of the difficulties in the Middle East, but Israel must be aware of their responsibility. Hitting UN aid and stating it to be an accident is not to be taken lightly.
I aggree Gil-Estel's opinion to 100 %.
Please do not forget that privacy is a high good what should also be protected.
and about Hitler... Gil-Estel is also right; but I also know, he was a big evil and a serious threat to the world. I am just wondering why Hitler is always the WORST guy? there were also other guys like Stalin or Mao - they are responsible for even more death in the world than hilter...
You should also consider that the thinking about the USA in the whole world got worse after Bush became president... before, Clinton was president... there was a good atmosphere between the USA and Russia... and also to the states of Arabia... there was less tension... the USA and Europe used to have a good relationship - but this didn't hold on for a long time after Bush came president... and now? Russia is about to forget buildung the new military bases... Europe also hopes and is confident concerning Obama to make a change the the American politics... and Obama also thinks about the environment...
You should know that the USA pollutes the world more than each other country... even if China is about to take the leadership...
The USA has got 5 percent of the worldwide human population... but causes a pollution of about 25 %
It is really necessary to think als about the environment... to produce new cars... WITHOUT oil or petrol... do it like the germans... bulid cars with hydrogen! Or at least cars with 3-4 litres per 100 kilometres.
I only say: Obama, you are right! Change we need!
-
It'd be great if he could fix the economy, and if he does, then kudos to him. Stuff like this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_greenhouse_gases;_ylt=AivFsylvyi9V_LSfh.804roD5gcF) is something we need to be working on. Now, I don't agree with the global warming stuff, but we do need to become less dependent (if not completely independent) on foreign oil.
On the other hand, this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban_37) is one of the reasons why the Right of this forum (including myself) have a problem with Obama. We believe that abortion is morally (and more importantly, Biblically) wrong.
But I'm interested to see what he does. If he does a fraction of what he says he will, then we're sitting pretty and congratulations to the Dems. If he doesn't, then the economy will be deemed beyond rescue because of the horrible job of the Bush administration and we'll still be in the crapper economically.
-
Yeah, but when you live in a democracy you have to take the bitter along with the sweet. I again sincerely wonder the personal motivation of Obama when it comes to abortion, because I personally think that being a christian -and he seems to be one- and being in favor of abortion is something that is least to say weird. But than again, being the leader of the pack, it doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants. He is like Boromir: if this is the will of the US people, Obama will see it done. And we all know Boromir didn't agree.
-
Yeah, of course, everyone has got his own opinion... and I really don't want to persuade/convince or offend anyone here... or something like that...
I just want to mention that the "global warming stuff" exists, is real and it is a process which is not to stop anymore - even if we stop all co2 emmissions immediately...
we need only to compare the climate here in Europe... the last 5-10 years... yeah... years... not centurys... it's really shocking and crazy what's going on due to pollution, etc. which is definitely caused by men
and even if there were not global warming - what is according to my oppinion nonsense (really don't want to offend anyone) - we must do something to decrease the need of oil (3 litres are better than 20, right? zero is better than only a little bit, right?) - because those are ressources with a limit, causes pollution and you are dependant on others...
We have to care about our responsability for the next generations - what will they find? no polar caps, no forests... - just environmental figures... this is also a chance to invest into science to invent something new... which is also good because there is a potential for further jobs... etc.
and yeah... it might be to early to see results from Obama's work... but give him a chance and we'll see... but I am confident it can't getting worse than Bush's administration...
-
Um.... yeah. Global warming is #$&*@!. I don't deny that pollution is a problem, but global warming isn't a problem; namely, because it doesn't exist. Here we're getting record lows and ice storms, and everybody is still screaming global warming. It is a farce. I mean, seriously, when Al Gore is at the head of something, you know something's not right already. :P
But as I said before, I'll be glad to see what Obama can get done. He has a pretty tall order to fill, since the media already has him walking on water. But we'll see what happens.
-
@AP:
although this is goining straight to of-topic: saying clobal warming does not happen is equal the same if you would deny the holocaust! so how can you deny a proved global problem? [-X
-
Um.... yeah. Global warming is #$&*@!. I don't deny that pollution is a problem, but global warming isn't a problem; namely, because it doesn't exist. Here we're getting record lows and ice storms, and everybody is still screaming global warming. It is a farce. I mean, seriously, when Al Gore is at the head of something, you know something's not right already. :P
But as I said before, I'll be glad to see what Obama can get done. He has a pretty tall order to fill, since the media already has him walking on water. But we'll see what happens.
You DO know that Global Warming doesn't simply translates into "temperature rising" , right? You were making a joke? I hope so... ;)
-
Well, I know that Gore isn't someone I would trust my life to, but he's not the only one. The degree of CO2 and the rising heat on earth have a certain relation and scientists wonder whether CO2 influences the temperature or whether it is the other way around. Global warming isn't only an Al Gore theme, though he is the one that is the most prominent spokesman of it. I have read that in Great Brittain his movie isn't allowed to be shown on schools for it includes at least 9 scientific errors. Nonetheless it is an issue, because the signs are quite obvious. Whether it is Global Warming or not, we have to care about the evironment, because we depend on the world we live in.
But I'm so glad that Obama is willing to open debate about it. I mean, again, even if you think the whole Global Warming thing is rubbish, you would have to agree that taking care is always good.
-
Um.... yeah. Global warming is #$&*@!. I don't deny that pollution is a problem, but global warming isn't a problem; namely, because it doesn't exist. Here we're getting record lows and ice storms, and everybody is still screaming global warming. It is a farce. I mean, seriously, when Al Gore is at the head of something, you know something's not right already.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh my goodness are you being serious? Cos I'm sorry but the scientific evidence for Global Warming is overwhelming. This isn't like evolution were its still pretty much a theory (despite what some scientists might claim). Global Warming is fact.
-
I guess my question than is, how does global warming cause more snow and record low temperatures?
-
I guess my question than is, how does global warming cause more snow and record low temperatures?
This, I don't know. Perhaps the global warming is not affecting the region as strong as elswhere at the moment; the Poles are definitely affected very hard by this process.
But I know, that the glaciers in the Alps start to die off the next ~ 15 years - imagine: Alps without glaciers?!
But I know, that especially the shrinkage of the polar caps in the Arctis and Antarctis is very, very fast.
But I know, that the sea level is rising dramatically that most regions at the coasts and bays will be flooded (due to the ice-melt of the polar caps); the Inhabitants of the Maledives have to look for a new home because their islands won't exist in the next few years
...and I didn't really know that the global warming is still a question in the US and not - as everywhere else in the world - a fact.
Ice bears loose the ground under their feets (ice melt)
Brown bears "forget" to eat more for their hibernation/winter sleep because it is to warm - then it's getting cold and they die.
And you should also know: while the polar caps are shrinking rapidly - the white surface can not reflect as much sun rays, heat as they can now or as they could in the past - so the global warming will get faster and faster... it's a vicious circle
...and we in Austria don't have in summer as usual 28° degrees celsius as normal in summer, but nearly 40° degrees... (this is normal for Africa but not for central Europe)
...and we don't have -20° degrees as we had in the winters a few years ago... but sometimes +15° degrees celsius...
Please guys, open your eyes - Global Warming is a fact!
Sorry gus for this long statement - but I am just that surprised that this is still a matter in question or a matter of "this does not exist".
-
sorry again for posting something which obviously does not belong to this topic.
-
A common misconception about Global Warming is that it is reffering to air temperature. It is not. Air Temperatures have increased slightly but in the majority Global Warming effects earth and water temperatures which have risen steadily over the last 50 years. The increase in snow fall in some parts of the world and rainfall in others is because the increase in earth and water temperatures is leading to an increase in precipitation. Quite simply there is more water evaporating leading to more water vapour in the air, leading to denser, heavier clouds and therefore more regular rainfall and snowfall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Compari son.png
-
@ Gil-Estel (sorry, computer won't let me quote)- Since 9/11, there were many different planned attacks by terrorists, but all were stopped before they were able to happen. I think that that is a great feat, especially in this time of war. To say that privacy was too high of a cost- if Bush didn't do what he had to, there would have been many more lives lost. Because the media painted the picture of a terrible president in our minds, people seem unable to believe that anything that he has done was actually good. Doing what was right over what was politically smart was a very noble thing, but Bush will never get credit for it.
-
Well, I think bush did not enough for the environment. I hope the next one will act immediately, otherwise Global Warming will overwhelm us all soon.
-
good to know Turin, actually I remember reading that polar ice was actually increasing in Antarctica, just dropping in the arctic.
I get the increase in snowfall, what doesn't meld in my mind is the record low temperatures.
-
Again, global warming is not about rising temperatures everywhere, it is about shifting weather, and other extremes. Heavy rainfall, freezing colds, enormous heats etc etc.
-
Again, global warming is not about rising temperatures everywhere, it is about shifting weather, and other extremes. Heavy rainfall, freezing colds, enormous heats etc etc.
sorry, but you're only 50% right. the effects you have described (hifting weather, heavy rainfall...) are the results of the rising temperature. for example the melting of the polar icecaps --> heavy rainfall...
edit: SOMEONE SHOULD OPEN A NEW TREAD ;)
-
awe I think I see now. that makes more sense.
-
I never said that Global Warming is only about those effects, it is the result of rising temperatures at certain places. Not everywhere it will get warmer, but especially at those places where it will get warmer, the effects are greater. But please keep in mind that this whole theory about global warming is widely debated by scientists around the world. And there isn't a consensus about the cause of it, and neither about the effects. Is it naturally, is it human caused, is it a combination of both. We're talking about things we can't fully grasp.
The werid thing is that certain effects are caused by good things. For example, due to cleaner air in Europe in the past 30-35 years there is an incredible decrease of fog, which leads to higher temperatures.
What can we say? Polution is a bad thing, no matter what. We need to focus on clean ways of doing the things we've always done. We don't need to be overdramatic about the future for the simple reason we don't know. We need to be cautious, and again, to keep on topic, it is great to see Obama picking up the challenge to look at least in to it.
-
Okay, Hitler didn't belong in this thread and neither does Global warming.
Now, on to the subject, and EL's questions:
GT, what specifically do you not like about Obama? I mean, we can go back and forth with Hitler-arguments, I'm sure, but talk policy.
Okay. Here goes. This is the list of reasons I disagree with Obama.
#1: Big Government
Obama loves big government and all the headaches that come with it.
He wants more taxes, more restrictions put upon middle class and
more control of people's lives.
#2: Socialism
Obama plans to spread the wealth around via taxes that would hit hard
on the ordinary middle-class guy. He plans to pay the lower classes for the
simple reason that they have less money. The treasury is too far in debt
already, so this is all going to come out of the wallets of hard-working men and women.
#3: Plans for the economy
We're in the middle of a recession, right? So why does Obama think that spending
more money will somehow clean everything up? Its like he's saying:
"Okay guys, lets sling another trillions dollars of tax money at this thing and hope
that it fixes everything!"
#4: Infringement of Rights
The guy doesn't give a d--- for the Bill of Rights. He wants to impose all sorts of
ludicrous laws and restrictions on gun owners that would inhibit the law-abiding
person, not the criminal. He also wants to reimpose the so called
'Fairness Doctrine', a law that infringes on our right of free speech.
#5: Support of Abortion
Last Sunday marked the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, and the 35th anniversary of
one of our greatest failures as a nation. For the last 35 years countless millions of
unborn babies have been murdered for the sole reason that they were 'inconvenient.'
For the last 35 years doctors, who have taken the Hippocratic oath and sworn to protect,
save, and uphold life have murdered countless. Now Obama has issued an executive order
to make more abortions possible by using your tax money.
No wonder I'm not feeling the magic of Obama...
Now, on what you said next:
And yes, I'm aware that what he claims he's going to do isn't what he's gonna do %100. But you can't hate a person because he could be a liar. That's irrational.
And mean.
I don't hate him because he could be a liar, in fact I don't hate him at all.
The man truly is a liar though. I mean come on, the guy contradicts himself
every week, first he says that 'only government can truly solve the crisis' and then
he says that 'only the workers of America can solve the crisis and all the politicians
can do is give them a favorable climate in which to work'. Sounds like lies to me.
Are you religious at all, GT? It's off topic but I'm wondering. You seem to have beef with misplaced faith.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'religious'. I am a Christian, and since I place my faith in Christ I
don't believe my faith is in any way misplaced. I have another question for you:
In what way is my faith misplaced?
-
[INSERT INTERRUPTION]
Hey guys. Just a friendly reminder not to let this spiral out of control. I haven't read the last page or so, but it doesn't look like it's reached that point yet, I'm just throwing this out there as a preemtive thing. We're all friends here. Maybe friends who have fundamental differences, but friends nonetheless.
We don't want any hostility here. Just remember that everyone else is arguing their point of view because they honestly want the best for their nation and the world, not because they want to drive the US or Britain, the Netherlands, or the entire world, et cetera into the dirt.
Okay, back to your arguing. :up:
[/INTERRUPTION]
-
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'religious'. I am a Christian, and since I place my faith in Christ I
don't believe my faith is in any way misplaced. I have another question for you:
In what way is my faith misplaced?
I'm not saying any sort of religious faith is misplaced - you misunderstand me. I'm a Christian, too. I was just thinking that the way you talk about people's "faith" in Obama is interesting, when compared to how some people talk about God.
Like I said, it was off-topic.
-
The sad thing is GT, that not spending money is not the answer. It is like an engine. When the oillevel is low, you must add new oil otherwise the engine will stall. And I also wonder, you say he wants to raise taxes, but this night, at least for me it was night, his plan was accepted which also included the lowering of the taxes of the middle class. And added to that, why do people always combine hard working with having more? People who have less, don't work less hard. That is the case with some, but not with all.
And then again: saying one thing and doing the other isn't it the way of politicians? Just kidding, but those things happen to all of us, and doesn't nessecarelly mean you're a liar, maybe you're just facing the impossibility of something you really wanted.
Also, what I must say, is that opposing is the easiest thing there is. As we say in Holland: if you want to beat a dog, a stick is easily found. Rather think constructive, instead of opposing. It is good to be critical, but he, you have to deal with this guy for some time, than better make it work. It starts with some faith, not that he will succeed, but that he is willing to succeed, for the better of the US, and maybe, for the better of the world. It is all about dealing with any given situation, try to make the best of it!
-
So this pretty much boils down to...
A. The European body of the forum is mostly pro-Obama.
B. The North American body of the forum is mostly anti-Obama.
C. We knew both of these things before this thread was even started.
Which means.... this is all GE's fault! :P
-
Let's tar and feather GE! ;-)
-
lol...its more like
A. Europeans like obama...I found this generally true...even with my favorite Christian Author, Englishman Chris walley. Go to his blog, he has some good reasons.
http://chriswalley.blogspot.com/
first post and last post talk about obama.
b. Most Americans here hate obama.
C. Some of us like obama.
D. Others are just confused.
-
I don't want Obama to succeed, I want him to do what's right.
-
Which is exactly what he'll be trying to do. Right some wrongs.
-
See, there is where I don't agree. I don't see the progression of Liberalism as helping my country.
-
All my fault, I get that a lot....:D
-
See, there is where I don't agree. I don't see the progression of Liberalism as helping my country.
Well, thank God you're not the president, then... You see, getting in good terms with THE REST OF THE WORLD, for instance, might be "slightly" helpful to your country in the long run (not even THAT long of a run, mind you), and this is surely a good start. Also, making the US a great place (instead of a great place for WASPs) seems like a pretty solid way to run things, even if you don't like it. The problem I have with discussing ANYTHING with north-americans is exactly that: the "my country" part. You put yourselves above the world as a whole, and that's a pretty selfish way to live in the era of globalization, if you ask me (or anyone with a good mind for politics, which I admit to not having, for instance).
-
I believe that the United States of America is the greatest country in the world. That is not being selfish, that is being patriotic, something that Obama is not familiar with. Liberalism (aka socialism) will destroy this country. It hasn't worked and it never will. Also, FM you should probably get your facts straight- the USA is the most diverse country in the world, and saying that we are only trying to get White Anglo-Saxon Protestant to have a great living is just proof of your ignorance. IF you want to see what the Obama agenda is regarding the furthering of American citizens, look no farther than Michelle Obama's college years and what she developed as her beliefs there.
-
If you have any, any awareness of history and the development of political movements, you would never, never say that liberalism and socialism are the same. They are the exact opposite 2 things you can find. Karl Marx is probably coming to haunt you if he was able for saying that!
-
Current American Liberialism is socialist... though it may be different in Europe.
-
D. Others are just confused.
:uh-huh:
Next year, we get a new president in my country, too.
I have read, in the USA, there are nuclear power stations. Maybe it is offtopic, but what is the new presidents opinion about NPS? Will he do anything against it?
-
... and that's a pretty selfish way to live in the era of globalization, if you ask me (or anyone with a good mind for politics, which I admit to not having, for instance).
Well that's the point isn't it: "globalisation" is essentially "Americanisation" in the world today. There's hardly a country in the world without McDonald's or Coca Cola.
Presumably, Lurtzy, you believe in other people's rights to believe that their country is the "best" country in the world? Ie. everyone has the right to be patriotic about wherever it is they happen to live?
Thranduil
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
Fair enough then, that's very reasonable 19th century nationalism. I think patriotism is a very dangerous thing (though I'm British and the British people are some of the most un-patriotic in the world!) but I respect you for believing in your country. ;)
-
Ah Coca Cola! The best american product I've come across in my life, exept maybe for the Nike Air Jordans, which are great. Oh and Jordan himself (british people, I'm not talking about your Jordan, which isn't exactly my taste) but you can't refer to him as a product, but man, he is great!
But yeah, here in the Netherland, which isn't the greatest country in the world, nor is it the worst (I think Zimbabwe must be terrible right now) liberalism is about a minimum of government involvement and socialism is about a strong government that takes care of the less fortunate people in the society. Socialism is a movement grown in the period in which liberalism led to exploiting labor and in which the poor people had no rights at all. So yeah, the history is that they are the greatest opposites possible. Nowadays the differences are smaller.
-
Yes.
Fair enough then, that's very reasonable 19th century nationalism. I think patriotism is a very dangerous thing (though I'm British and the British people are some of the most un-patriotic in the world!) but I respect you for believing in your country. ;)
I think the Dutch will beat you there ;D
-
@Gil-Estel your Liberalism is America's Conservatism.
-
D. Others are just confused.
Check.
Anyway, I'm Colombian ----meaning we had good relations with Bush (putting aside judgement on him)--- and I was rooting for McCain to continue with that image of US as the world's police.
Mainly because it's truly needed that some country help control all the greed and invasion there always be going on between neighboors- ie Israel's conflict zone.
But now I'm rooting for Obama and trusting his chance to demonstrate that he (and as a democrat) can handle economy and 2009 crisis, or at least fix it a little. I believe he can and will
make needed important changes.
Also, and about the last posts:
1) I don't think Obama, nor anybody will bring socialism to the US (which is a good thing to me).
2) It IS good to have good relationships with all the other countries (that's what politics and diplomacy is about). Regardless if someone thinks it's the most miserable country in the world, a good relationship brings benefits for both parts. That extra extra patriotism is not good: like any excess it goes against having an open mind for analysis and makes you more liable to do heavy things without using your head.
-
What is the difference between Democrat and Republican?
-
these days? not a whole lot.
-
Heads they win, Tails we lose.
-
I wouldn't say that British people are unpatriotic we are just patriotic in a different way. We don't shout and whoop and place our hands on our hearts and recite oaths to our country but that is partly because of our longer history. Britain as a single, united country has been around a lot longer than most other countries in the world, even compared to the other European countries. So the way that our society and our democracy has been slowly built and fought for over roughyl 1500 years since the Romans left mean that we celebrate it less. Take it this way, with America they established their freedom and their democracy in a sudden and glorious revolution and because of this it is celebrated more and is treasured in a different way. With Britain it has been a slow evolution from all powerful monarchy to democracy. Apart from the occasional sudden jump such as the Magna Carta or the Civil War, British history has been one of the gradual and generally peacefull passing of power from the monarchy to the people. So we don't hype it up and don't celebrate it nearly as much. A good analogy would be that America was like child which very suddenly emancipated itself from its parent and has been celebrating its adulthood ever since whereas Britain is like a child which grew steadily into its adulthood and so doesn't think of its adulthood as anything special but more as just a natural part of its evolution. So how do we show our patriotism? Mainly through how seriously we take our politics and our country. We are very clear that our leaders are people we have voted for to do a job, just like any other job, and if they don't do that we expect answers. I mean just look at Prime Ministers questions. Once a week we can actually watch on TV as our Prime Minister is grilled upon the big issues of the moment, usually quite aggresivly by the other parties. I mean they wouldn't dream of that in the USA because the president as a figurehead is held with a lot more reverance. Plus often our latent Patriotism is channelled into our sport. We our fiercly patriotic when it comes to our sports.
Wow that was a really long post and not really to the point. And no Mr Lurzty Liberalism and socialism are definately not the same thing and to assert that they are merely makes you sound like the steryotype raving, conservative who fires his gun at the first sign of anything 'red'.
-
Ok... exactly how long ago was it that somebody posted something even related to the new president?...
-
Ok... exactly how long ago was it that somebody posted something even related to the new president?...
Alright then, I'll get back to the point.
You know I was talking to someone the other day and I found out something unbelievable. Apparently, the new president is African American! :o
Thranduil
-
Ok, I didn't exactly mean it like that...
-
@Gil-Estel your Liberalism is America's Conservatism.
Ah, good point to differentiate: "liberal" and "conservative" are highly subjective terms, defined entirely by cultural context. Within the United States, socialism is a popular form of US liberalism. But there are other forms, and what is 'liberal' in one nation is not necessarily 'liberal' in another.
Oh, and something occurred to me today. Societal evolution.
Okay, so people say that base socialist economic systems have never worked. Not that I'm disagreeing here, but....
Societies change in a few different manners.
First is gradual evolution. Societal development, caused by changing conditions, technology, the influence of other cultures, states, et cetera. For example, fashion. Yeah, it's influenced by all sorts of stuff, but there's no huge cataclysmic fundamental shift.
Second is revolution. Think Russian Bolsheviks.
Third is forced adaptation. Think the Japanese, moving from the medieval to the modern world rapidly.
Okay, so let's assume a VERY basic progression of societal poitical/economic development as the norm:
1. Bartering
2. Feudalism
3. Imperialism
4. Capitalism
5. -------------
Okay. This is an evolution, not a sudden shift.
Option 2. Revolution.
Feudalism (Think Tsarist Russia or the Chinese Empire (yeah, "Imperial" China was Feudal, not Imperial, from my understanding of the systems....)) --> Socialism.
We just bypassed both Imperialism and Capitalism.
Not only that, but it happened overnight. The cultures, societies, the people aren't conditioned for this fundamental change to something so utterly foreign.
So of course it doesn't work. And it won;t work for generations, regardless of whether or not it will work as the next societal evolutionary stage after Capitalism.
Not that I'm saying it WILL work. I'm just throwing this out there as something to consider. I still don't believe that socialism, as a base economic system, will work. I just thought this was an interesting argument.
Anyway, back on track. Option 3.
Um... the UAE, Japan, and India conquer the world. UAE's vast resources and wealth, combined with Japan and India's vast technological monopolies render the triumvate an unstoppable force.
The rest of us are all turned into serfs, and we revert to Feudalism. :P
-
See you at the demesne. :roll:
-
See you at the demesne. :roll:
:lol: Yeah, I'm a raving communist now. Or something like that.
Seriously, though. I don't think socialism as a base economic system ever has, or ever can work. It just occurred to me, though, that one could argue that a "socialism" stage is inevitable. Heck, Bullionism failed miserably, but it was still part of the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism in a lot of civilizations. Again, I'm not saying I like socialism. Just throwing out arguments (in the case of my last post, one that I don't actually agree with... I just came up with it as my mind was wandering in History class....)
-
What is the difference between Democrat and Republican?
A democrat tends to be a moderate or a liberal. A Republican tends to be a moderate or a conservative.
-
The sad thing is GT, that not spending money is not the answer. It is like an engine. When the oillevel is low, you must add new oil otherwise the engine will stall. And I also wonder, you say he wants to raise taxes, but this night, at least for me it was night, his plan was accepted which also included the lowering of the taxes of the middle class. And added to that, why do people always combine hard working with having more? People who have less, don't work less hard. That is the case with some, but not with all.
And then again: saying one thing and doing the other isn't it the way of politicians? Just kidding, but those things happen to all of us, and doesn't nessecarelly mean you're a liar, maybe you're just facing the impossibility of something you really wanted.
Also, what I must say, is that opposing is the easiest thing there is. As we say in Holland: if you want to beat a dog, a stick is easily found. Rather think constructive, instead of opposing. It is good to be critical, but he, you have to deal with this guy for some time, than better make it work. It starts with some faith, not that he will succeed, but that he is willing to succeed, for the better of the US, and maybe, for the better of the world. It is all about dealing with any given situation, try to make the best of it!
About your engine analogy; Obama's 'stimulus' bill isn't like adding oil to the engine, its like adding imaginary oil. The money doesn't exist. Its called deficit spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending). Whereas tax-cuts allow people to keep the real money they already earned this kind of spending is not stimulative and only increases inflation, debt, and loss of jobs. Here's an analogy of mine for you: Imagine theres this village. Now imagine that it is somewhere in Europe (the actual location doesn't really matter) and that its currency is the Euro. This village is very isolated, there are never any strangers and the entire population is only about fifty people and the total of money circulating the village is only about 100,000 Euros. Then, one day, one of the villagers starts secretly counterfeiting money. There's no way of detecting the fraud so every fake bill enters circulation. Eventually the counterfeiter creates 20,000 Euros. The money hasn't been earned either by services or by exchange of goods so the value of the money go's down and prices go up. That's basically what Obama's doing. There's nothing right about taking money from the people who earned it and giving it to others who did not.
This brings us to another reason why the bill stinks. It's just a pork barrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel). It gives money to different corporations so they will support Obama in his next election. You guys give Obama a whole lot more credit than he deserves. Obama isn't a starry-eyed idealist who wants to save the world. He has an agenda that is pure politics. I know its wonderful to think of Obama working for the good of America, but the truth is, is doesn't work like that and it never has. He's a whole lot more shrewd than anyone gives him credit for. This is all about being re-elected and keeping his grip on their power, and you guys seem to naive to see that. The Democrats don't want to work with anyone, they want to stay in power for as long as is humanly possible. To sum it up: The majority of American politics back through the last century has been a huge power play. Anyone who chooses to ignore that fact will never understand how American politics work at all.
See, there is where I don't agree. I don't see the progression of Liberalism as helping my country.
Well, thank God you're not the president, then... You see, getting in good terms with THE REST OF THE WORLD, for instance, might be "slightly" helpful to your country in the long run (not even THAT long of a run, mind you), and this is surely a good start. Also, making the US a great place (instead of a great place for WASPs) seems like a pretty solid way to run things, even if you don't like it. The problem I have with discussing ANYTHING with north-americans is exactly that: the "my country" part. You put yourselves above the world as a whole, and that's a pretty selfish way to live in the era of globalization, if you ask me (or anyone with a good mind for politics, which I admit to not having, for instance).
#1: I'm tired of hearing you non-Americans tell us how horrible our country is. Don't judge us based on what our media and newsmen; The U.S.A. already is a great place. Looking at Obama's actions I don't think he'll make it any better. I think he'll make it a whole lot worse.
#2: Yep, its America first, and America above all, and I'm not ashamed to say it. Their is nothing wrong or selfish about being fiercely patriotic. We don't owe other contries anything. We don't want to be globalized by anybody. We've fought for our freedom and we will never give up. Don't you all realize that's why we don't want to relinquish our freedoms to the tin-pot dictators that the rest of the world serves (or has served) under. America has protected the world's backside more times than I care to remember, and all we get is a lot of flak about how horrible loyal we are to our country, instead of the d--- U.N.
-
we don't owe any other countries anything? WTF? we owe china whole lot of money for one. France our freedom (possibly paid back in WWII) we owe the world for not joining WWII earlier (and one arguably) and for not joining the league of nations. etc.
-
we don't owe any other countries anything? WTF? we owe china whole lot of money for one. France our freedom (possibly paid back in WWII) we owe the world for not joining WWII earlier (and one arguably) and for not joining the league of nations. etc.
I'm just saying that we don't owe other nations any loyalty. We definitely owe China money, but thats a very long story thats starts with the rising minimum wage forcing companies to move their production overseas etc. We probably should have joined WW2 sooner, but face it, we weren't ready for war any more than Germany, Italy or Japan and you figure, we gave tons of war materials to Great Britain and Soviet Russia (Giving to Soviet Russia probably was stupid, FDR basically sucked up to them all war, and guess what he got? The Cold War!) The League of Nations was a pathetic organization that did nothing to prevent WW2, and is pretty much seen now as what not do if you're designing an organization of that sort.
-
Well said, GT. =D> :gp:
-
The League of Nations was a pathetic organization that did nothing to prevent WW2, and is pretty much seen now as what not do if you're designing an organization of that sort.
What not to do is designing a league and afterwards not joining the league, that is what not to do. It is very easy to look back and be judging, but it is another story to try to see the things as they saw it.
Hitler, threat
Stalin, threat
What to do, can't fight both. Ever heard of the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Didn't the US do it again with the Mudjahedin, members of Taliban in Afghanistan? When the Sovjet Union invaded Afghanistan, the US supported the Mudjahedin. that is what world politics is all about, opportunism.
Being proud of your country is ok, but remember that it is also a weakness. Pride is the stronghold of fools (as we say it in Holland), because it can blind you for things. You always need to stay alert, always need to stay critical towards your own country. Things can occur without you knowing it.
It is also a potential weakness. For example, americans tend to express their pride in symbols. The US flag, the Capitol, all these symbols that play a major role in your tradition. NK send me an email with a new ship last year made of the scraps from the WTC. US wants to show that they cannot be hurt and that they will never surrender to the threat of terrorism. Which is great, but it means that if you want to hurt the US, you go for the symbols.
If someone burns a dutch flag, the typical reaction would be: a waste of money (he, we're dutch) and we hope that he burns his fingers. If a US flag is burned, the impression I get is that a lot of people in the US are hurt to the bottom of their harts. That way it is easy to upset the US and we are all witnesses of what that can lead to: unsuccesful invasion of Afghanistan with some, tragically payed for victories. Same for Irak.
Being huble is -imho- the way to go. We are shown on a daily base that all our expertise doesn't lead to perfection. All our force isn't enough to take away the threat, so maybe we need to be humble and admit that we just try our best, and hope that our best will be enough to make a change....
-
it was a pathetic organization and did nothing to prevent WWII cause WE DIDN"T JOIN!
-
Two apostrophes in "didn't" for added emphasis. :P
And hey, Blagojevich finally got impeached (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090130/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor_impeachment;_ylt=Ag1NrBwLE1KtJtZMXMdryTiyFz4D).
-
it was a pathetic organization and did nothing to prevent WWII cause WE DIDN"T JOIN!
my point exactly.....Thank you Wilson, with your great plans!
-
Two apostrophes in "didn't" for added emphasis. :P
I'm too lazy to let go of shift ;)
-
The League of Nations didn't work, and would have never worked because it depended to much on arms restrictions. It didn't depend on strength to enforce its laws, it depended in a lack of strength. Whether America was a member on not didn't matter because all the treaty would have done would have been to weaken America! That's why our Congress stood aside at let the other nations suffer the results of Wilson's hare-brained scheme. As the British cabinet secretary Maurice Hankey said:
"It [a League of Nations] will only result in failure and the longer that failure is postponed the more certain it is that this country will have been lulled to sleep. It will put a very strong lever into the hands of the well-meaning idealists who are to be found in almost every Government, who deprecate expenditure on armaments, and, in the course of time, it will almost certainly result in this country being caught at a disadvantage"
The moment the three axis nations left the league the rest of the league did nothing. In a sense, the fact that Hitler gobbled up so much of Europe without any restraint is a testament to the idiocy of Wilson. Our problem wasn't that we didn't join the League; our problem was that we even thought the stupid thing up in the first place!
-
It is also a potential weakness. For example, americans tend to express their pride in symbols. The US flag, the Capitol, all these symbols that play a major role in your tradition. NK send me an email with a new ship last year made of the scraps from the WTC. US wants to show that they cannot be hurt and that they will never surrender to the threat of terrorism. Which is great, but it means that if you want to hurt the US, you go for the symbols. If someone burns a dutch flag, the typical reaction would be: a waste of money (he, we're dutch) and we hope that he burns his fingers. If a US flag is burned, the impression I get is that a lot of people in the US are hurt to the bottom of their harts. That way it is easy to upset the US and we are all witnesses of what that can lead to: unsuccesful invasion of Afghanistan with some, tragically payed for victories. Same for Irak.
[/quote]
Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.
-
It is also a potential weakness. For example, americans tend to express their pride in symbols. The US flag, the Capitol, all these symbols that play a major role in your tradition. NK send me an email with a new ship last year made of the scraps from the WTC. US wants to show that they cannot be hurt and that they will never surrender to the threat of terrorism. Which is great, but it means that if you want to hurt the US, you go for the symbols. If someone burns a dutch flag, the typical reaction would be: a waste of money (he, we're dutch) and we hope that he burns his fingers. If a US flag is burned, the impression I get is that a lot of people in the US are hurt to the bottom of their harts. That way it is easy to upset the US and we are all witnesses of what that can lead to: unsuccesful invasion of Afghanistan with some, tragically payed for victories. Same for Irak.
Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.
[/quote]
Ah you mean commiting the greatest atrocity in human history?
-
=D>
-
ah the good old "should we have dropped the atom bomb or not dropped the atom bomb" regardless, I wouldn't call the said dropping the greatest atrocity in Human history...holocaust, the near eradication of many tribes of American indians, Slavery, some would say Abortion ...yeah/
-
Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.
The weakness I descriped.....
-
Ummmm. I like paste...
-
So now patriotism is weakness?
-
Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.
The weakness I descriped.....
Not a weakness. It's called defending the homeland. If we hadn't taken decisive action, you and everybody else would be speaking Japanese or German right now.
-
ah the good old "should we have dropped the atom bomb or not dropped the atom bomb" regardless, I wouldn't call the said dropping the greatest atrocity in Human history...holocaust, the near eradication of many tribes of American indians, Slavery, some would say Abortion ...yeah/
What's interesting is that the bombing of Tokyo in March of 45 killed almost as many people as Hiroshima and more than Nagasaki. Its just that no-one remembers that because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were A-bombs. This tells me the bombs did their job. However horrific the bombs were, if they hadn't been dropped many more people would have been killed via conventional bombing and regular old war.
Greatest atrocity of all time? Or a horrible means to end a horrific war started by horrifically bad people.
-
Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.
The weakness I descriped.....
Not a weakness. It's called defending the homeland. If we hadn't taken decisive action, you and everybody else would be speaking Japanese or German right now.
And to think it takes so much time to learn those, and not quite so much to learn English... Man, I wanted to speak japanese! ;)
LOL
-
I'm in stitches. :roll:
-
ah the good old "should we have dropped the atom bomb or not dropped the atom bomb" regardless, I wouldn't call the said dropping the greatest atrocity in Human history...holocaust, the near eradication of many tribes of American indians, Slavery, some would say Abortion ...yeah/
What's interesting is that the bombing of Tokyo in March of 45 killed almost as many people as Hiroshima and more than Nagasaki. Its just that no-one remembers that because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were A-bombs. This tells me the bombs did their job. However horrific the bombs were, if they hadn't been dropped many more people would have been killed via conventional bombing and regular old war.
Greatest atrocity of all time? Or a horrible means to end a horrific war started by horrifically bad people.
A++ very well said if we had not dropped those bombs we would have been forced to sweep that island from end to end and left nothing alive larger than a toad. They were being run by fanatical military leaders who had the people so riled up that they would have met us on the beach with sticks and kitchen knives. They were also going to strap bombs to their children and send them under the tanks. Would have been #$&*@! for the men and meeting a Japanese person today would have been a rarity indeed. Atrocity you say I think not.
-
WWII was tolareted such a long time, because contract of St. Germains and of Versailles were very hard for the countries, who "lost" the WW1. And other nations (GB, France) knew this.
-
Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.
The weakness I descriped.....
Not a weakness. It's called defending the homeland. If we hadn't taken decisive action, you and everybody else would be speaking Japanese or German right now.
Hmm speaking german?
Do you exactly know the history of the flag of the US?
I mean everyone knows that the stars in the blue field represent each single state of the US.
...how about the 13 red and white stripes - yes these represents the original 13 states of the US.
...they were searching for a united language in their country... so they had to decide... Do you also know the resulting of the voting?
7 voted for English to make their language
6 voted for German to make their language...
so easiliy it could have been happened that the language in the US is german.
And by the way: English is a german language... of course english is more than a german dialect... but its roots is in the german language...
-
WWII was tolareted such a long time, because contract of St. Germains and of Versailles were very hard for the countries, who "lost" the WW1. And other nations (GB, France) knew this.
WWII was a following reaction to the treaty of St. Germains and Versailles.
-
I was talking about the reaction of Lurtzy. Clobbering countries because of burning a flag is what I call weakness. With great strength comes great responsebility. I'm a pretty big guy and if one of my pupils is calling me names and I beat the #$&*@! out of him, no-one will say: way to go, keep up the good work. I should know better. Remember the words of a certain Jesus Christ, when they nailed Him to the cross, called Him names and did all kind of horrible things: forgive them Father, for they do not know what they are doing.
Again, being proud of your country is not wrong. Being critical is even better. There are a lot of good things in the US, but there is also a lot of poverty, a lot of problems etc. Make sure you can be proud.
And because I know a lot of people are christians here (sorry FM and other if I lose you here) I want to add this. The christian way of living is the the way of serving others. Being humble. Jesus came to this world and everyone expected Him to kick out the Romans. But he came to help those who really needed it. He came to serve, washing the feet of his followers, instead of being crowned as their king, eventhough He had every right! Try to translate this way of living to your own.
-
Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.
The weakness I descriped.....
Not a weakness. It's called defending the homeland. If we hadn't taken decisive action, you and everybody else would be speaking Japanese or German right now.
Hmm speaking german?
Do you exactly know the history of the flag of the US?
I mean everyone knows that the stars in the blue field represent each single state of the US.
...how about the 13 red and white stripes - yes these represents the original 13 states of the US.
...they were searching for a united language in their country... so they had to decide... Do you also know the resulting of the voting?
7 voted for English to make their language
6 voted for German to make their language...
so easiliy it could have been happened that the language in the US is german.
Uh...I'd like to see where you heard this. This isn't true. At all.
-
We do not "clobber countries because of burning a flag". We clobber them because they attack us.
-
Exactly. I meant when enemies attack us we don't cry, we attack them.
-
Hmm speaking german?
Do you exactly know the history of the flag of the US?
I mean everyone knows that the stars in the blue field represent each single state of the US.
...how about the 13 red and white stripes - yes these represents the original 13 states of the US.
...they were searching for a united language in their country... so they had to decide... Do you also know the resulting of the voting?
7 voted for English to make their language
6 voted for German to make their language...
so easiliy it could have been happened that the language in the US is german.
Uh...I'd like to see where you heard this. This isn't true. At all.
There was a moot point! :uh-huh: Here are serveral topics treated...this is a real challenge to follow this topic. :uh-huh:
Why should anyone burn a flag? That is not normal, is not it? But I think, that is not the problem. People, who attack others, are really ugly. They should be banned.
But there a still greater problems like environement destruction. I mean, how can anyone agree to build a nuclear power station? Even worse, in some countries, they are still allowed! :o
But the worst case is racism. There are People living on the world, who treat animals bad, just because they are not of the human race! [-X
There are many things to change. And as bearer of obligation, new presidents should not care about unimportant things (I mean this general, I do not know exactly what Kings, Queens, Lords and Presidents do all over the world).