A
arhar
Guest
I'm sorry, I give up. I refuse to even dignify the last idiotic turd of an argument Duke has put out with a response. I guess I lose this debate.
T
train
Guest
Do turds count as valid arguments...
D
DÛke
Guest
...
...behold!
The clarity of sunlight we can finally see, the fresh air of simplicity, the clearness behind all "greatness" and "goodness"! The stench of Jewishness and religiousness, the awe-inspiring filth and webs that have been weaved on every matter and every cause, the "liberty" and the "freedom" of un-liberal and unfree know-nothing, dispirited, un-noble men and women who call themselves the "future."
What has hitherto been the "Arabian" has to go - the Arabian presidents, or should I say, the throne-lovers, the extravagant idiots who like to hog ruler-ship and not even do the simple task of ruling righteously.
Yet again...
What has so far been "American" and "America" must go as well, and it must be treated in the same rude, unforgiving, lashing manner in which we aim to find a cure for cancers and diseases, surely enough, "good American" and "disease" are synonyms, easily interchanged, eventually meaning the exact same thing.
"...call me Nazi, call me a Devil, call me inhuman, subhuman, call me the foulest words that have ever been invented...but call me a 'good American,' and that alone will be your greatest weapon to, perhaps, offend a good taste and good manners, to offend all of life in general..."
Like a single ravaging boulder onto obscuring spider webs...
...behold!
The clarity of sunlight we can finally see, the fresh air of simplicity, the clearness behind all "greatness" and "goodness"! The stench of Jewishness and religiousness, the awe-inspiring filth and webs that have been weaved on every matter and every cause, the "liberty" and the "freedom" of un-liberal and unfree know-nothing, dispirited, un-noble men and women who call themselves the "future."
What has hitherto been the "Arabian" has to go - the Arabian presidents, or should I say, the throne-lovers, the extravagant idiots who like to hog ruler-ship and not even do the simple task of ruling righteously.
Yet again...
What has so far been "American" and "America" must go as well, and it must be treated in the same rude, unforgiving, lashing manner in which we aim to find a cure for cancers and diseases, surely enough, "good American" and "disease" are synonyms, easily interchanged, eventually meaning the exact same thing.
"...call me Nazi, call me a Devil, call me inhuman, subhuman, call me the foulest words that have ever been invented...but call me a 'good American,' and that alone will be your greatest weapon to, perhaps, offend a good taste and good manners, to offend all of life in general..."
G
Gizmo
Guest
Is anybody here actually sane any more? I cant see any evidence of it.
D
DÛke
Guest
...
I confess, O Lord: I forbid myself "sanity." But surely enough, this has been figured out even by a one as Arhar.
Nope, Ms. Sanity left - why?
...she smelled a Bush.
I confess, O Lord: I forbid myself "sanity." But surely enough, this has been figured out even by a one as Arhar.
Nope, Ms. Sanity left - why?
...she smelled a Bush.
T
Thallid Ice Cream Man
Guest
I just had a fingernail sandwich
I'm not sure where I said this, I didn't look on the last page since I was gone for four days. If I did say it, I'm thinking I was wrong and culture can influence foreign policy to some degree.
Our administration changes every 4 or 8 years though, so one can undo what the previous has done. Like what Bush did to Clinton's policies and what another Clinton-like mind president might undo (or correct, however you want to look at it) what Bush has done.
True, but again more an initiative of the current administration.
Actually the last statement is false and is the third option: let China pressure N. Korea into "doing what's right" (or bowing to the world's wishes or whatever). China is a bit leery about them possessing nukes and since they supply N. Korea with almost all trade and oil and whatnot, China is a good country to talk to instead of N. Korea itself.
A
Astranbrulth
Guest
Spiderman -- Precisely the lack of consistency in the United States' policies is the cause of much of the anger toward your country. Criticism of individual policies apart, I think if there were some mechanism in the US constitution or laws that prevented each successive president from simply tearing down what his (or her) predecessor had created, there would be less people like me around pointing fingers and shouting "hypocrites!".
Possibly some sort of substantial majority system where each policy that is up for change has to be defeated by a large margin would work.
On the Korean issue, while yes, China would not like to see N Korea with nukes, mark my words, if push comes to shove, and the US wants to carry out some sort of military action against N Korea, China will be in the Korean corner. They will not want to see the army of their biggest rival camped on their doorstep. Pressuring China to help disarm N Korea is exactly the sort of diplomatic route that we should be looking at. However, remember that in the end, it is the Koreans that decide whether they disarm or not, and I doubt ( although I could be wrong ) that this disarming can be done without direct talks with them.
Thallid Ice Cream Man -- (Do Thallids eat ice creams? I thought they lived underwater. Wouldn't their ice creams dissolve?!)
Jokes aside, a lot of what you say makes sense. For example, it would be interesting to see exactly how much advertising influences the masses. To me it seems that if you shout loud enough , you can drown out whatever other people have to say to oppose you (as with the Iraq story). Surely if there is enough influence by the media, the media can shape your culture (the monstrous social pressure you refer to) for you, probably headed by advertising execs who just want you to buy buy buy... Hmm .. there must be studies done on this somewhere...
The greater the pressure of society, the more difficult it is for people to just do their own thing, and it amounts to what you said - one can be different, as long as you're different in the same way as everyone else. Doesn't that feel like communism!?
Possibly some sort of substantial majority system where each policy that is up for change has to be defeated by a large margin would work.
On the Korean issue, while yes, China would not like to see N Korea with nukes, mark my words, if push comes to shove, and the US wants to carry out some sort of military action against N Korea, China will be in the Korean corner. They will not want to see the army of their biggest rival camped on their doorstep. Pressuring China to help disarm N Korea is exactly the sort of diplomatic route that we should be looking at. However, remember that in the end, it is the Koreans that decide whether they disarm or not, and I doubt ( although I could be wrong ) that this disarming can be done without direct talks with them.
Thallid Ice Cream Man -- (Do Thallids eat ice creams? I thought they lived underwater. Wouldn't their ice creams dissolve?!)
Jokes aside, a lot of what you say makes sense. For example, it would be interesting to see exactly how much advertising influences the masses. To me it seems that if you shout loud enough , you can drown out whatever other people have to say to oppose you (as with the Iraq story). Surely if there is enough influence by the media, the media can shape your culture (the monstrous social pressure you refer to) for you, probably headed by advertising execs who just want you to buy buy buy... Hmm .. there must be studies done on this somewhere...
The greater the pressure of society, the more difficult it is for people to just do their own thing, and it amounts to what you said - one can be different, as long as you're different in the same way as everyone else. Doesn't that feel like communism!?
I would venture to state that most people who are knowledgable about foreign affairs in other countries (which I will also venture to state is more than those who care about foreign affairs in the US ) recognize that it's the administration and not the general country when it comes to policies.
It really depends on what the policy "is". The State Dept., the one nominally behind policy, is under the executive branch, not Congress, so it follows what the administration says. Treaties have to be ratified by Congress but I don't think it got to that point regarding Kyoto. The ABM probably should have gone to Congress though but again, not sure how it all exactly works.
There really isn't that much difference in the US being camped in N. Korea or where it is currently in S. Korea or Japan, but I tentatively agree, although with the current winds blowing in China, leadership might change and then who knows. But I don't think China wants N. Korea to have nukes as N Korea could then effectively blackmail China for its supplies (as one scenario).
) recognize that it's the administration and not the general country when it comes to policies.It really depends on what the policy "is". The State Dept., the one nominally behind policy, is under the executive branch, not Congress, so it follows what the administration says. Treaties have to be ratified by Congress but I don't think it got to that point regarding Kyoto. The ABM probably should have gone to Congress though but again, not sure how it all exactly works.
There really isn't that much difference in the US being camped in N. Korea or where it is currently in S. Korea or Japan, but I tentatively agree, although with the current winds blowing in China, leadership might change and then who knows. But I don't think China wants N. Korea to have nukes as N Korea could then effectively blackmail China for its supplies (as one scenario).
D
Dune Echo
Guest
I'm stepping into this argument way to late, but I wanted to clarify something I know is NOT factually true.
I haven't read this whole argument, but I have to throw in my 2 cents.
War is hell. No way around it. Killing is killing, and history is written by the winners. We'll call the troops that win "heroes" and the ones that lose "murderers". And in war, God (gods, Allah, whatever) is always on "my side" (um, yeah, funny how that works huh?).
The fact that there are a "coalition" (two countries without the UN's blessings is not "the world") to go find chemical weapons (no evidence of them yet, btw!) is highly suspicious of being politically motivated (I would even say blatantly obvious). And there is DEFINITELY political propaganda floating around throughout the mass media in favor of both sides in this conflict.
And if anyone wants to question my patriotism, eat this: I want BOTH US/British troops AND Iraqi troops to go back to their own native soil and be with their families in one piece in a home that's intact and safe. Yet someone will question my desire to have everyone alive and okay. (Which brings to bear the question? What is YOUR definition of free speech?)
Not quite... Basically, up until the Civil War, most wars were still fought in the column formation, stand-up and shoot tactics. It was the acceptible means of combat. The only reason we won the Revolutionary War against the UK was that we allied with the French who hated the British at the time!
I haven't read this whole argument, but I have to throw in my 2 cents.
War is hell. No way around it. Killing is killing, and history is written by the winners. We'll call the troops that win "heroes" and the ones that lose "murderers". And in war, God (gods, Allah, whatever) is always on "my side" (um, yeah, funny how that works huh?).
The fact that there are a "coalition" (two countries without the UN's blessings is not "the world") to go find chemical weapons (no evidence of them yet, btw!) is highly suspicious of being politically motivated (I would even say blatantly obvious). And there is DEFINITELY political propaganda floating around throughout the mass media in favor of both sides in this conflict.
And if anyone wants to question my patriotism, eat this: I want BOTH US/British troops AND Iraqi troops to go back to their own native soil and be with their families in one piece in a home that's intact and safe. Yet someone will question my desire to have everyone alive and okay. (Which brings to bear the question? What is YOUR definition of free speech?)
D
DÛke
Guest
...
Now there is a founder I'm willing to respect.
DE - although it seems you and I might disagree concerning the meaning of patriotism, I can still respect your point of view because it lacks the smell of rotten prejudice and hypocrisy that I have, with all honesty, smelt for too long. As long as your opinion is a straight line that does not turn against itself like I have seen with most everyone else around here, I will respect you for whatever it is that you hold.
"Stand on one standard, or don't stand at all - don't speak at all, don't live at all."
I will say it again...
Open Your Heart...
And Push...the Limits.
Now there is a founder I'm willing to respect.
DE - although it seems you and I might disagree concerning the meaning of patriotism, I can still respect your point of view because it lacks the smell of rotten prejudice and hypocrisy that I have, with all honesty, smelt for too long. As long as your opinion is a straight line that does not turn against itself like I have seen with most everyone else around here, I will respect you for whatever it is that you hold.
"Stand on one standard, or don't stand at all - don't speak at all, don't live at all."
I will say it again...
Open Your Heart...
And Push...the Limits.
D
Dune Echo
Guest
Thanks.
I'm sure we'd disagree on a lot of things, DÛke (personally, I wouldn't call anyone subhuman, for example...). I've got (very close) friends in foreign countries and I know US citizens have a bad rep for a reason. But I really want to point out to everyone that not everyone (US or otherwise) is prejudiced and hypocritical. Yes, we're all human beings and everyone has their quirks that make us unique, but most people, US or otherwise, actually want to just get along without having to resort to violence.
Unfortunately, a LOT (not all!) of Americans (and I'm sure other peoples) just fail to ask questions before voicing their opinion or joining a side of some sort, which is what I feel is probably the only major flaw in a lot of people (US and otherwise) on the whole.
Democracy can be a great thing. However, it does allow the un-informed to make decisions while providing it's freedoms. No political system is absolutely perfect. Also, there are many, many cultural differences just in the space of 200 miles on this planet of ours. You can't expect everyone to agree, but you should expect we can all co-exist enough that people don't need to die in mass numbers by humanity's hands.
D
DÛke
Guest
...
And I cannot disagree here. I have, in few posts, pointed out how my "prejudice" is not onto Americans alone, but many around the world, including the good ol'Europeans, Arabians, and the Iraqis in general.
I know you will disagree with this, but what separates us as human beings is the ability to rationalize, to overcome or at least control our primitive bents, in brief, to be able to ask questions, and plenty of them - to place suspicion where it is needed, to place a question mark and an exclamation point in more instances, to finally withhold periods and ends. That a sheer number of people are unable to communicate as such, unable to form themselves, to grow in such good fashion, to be of so much lacking, so much irrationality, so much...opinion! - it is not human - it is still primitive, still bent, still basic. This simplicity of existence, as demonstrated by people, constitutes humanity, whereas if a man abuses himself, his creativity, his spirit, when he exhausts his everything - that constitutes what is human, and I assure you, at that point, the produce of such a human being does not fall short of genius, creativity, passion, and life. Subhumanity is the majority. It fails to exhaust itself, and it has as its greatest aim happiness and pleasure, at any cost, at any life, at any lie. It is willing to go beyond the limits if only to gratify itself and its "liberty," completely unaware, completely lacking. We humans are inclined to underestimate the sheer dangerous these majorities and maximum number represent - they are the very icon of debauchery if there was any, they very cancer. Never does history fail to show us this, to tell us its ugly stories of these very libertine subhumans.
As I understand your position, your avoidance of such a pessimistic outlook and sharp prejudice - I tell you, or rather, remind you, that these…people…have stolen the world, that they have turned the axis of the Earth, of values, of all morality and liberty, they have turned life into their favor...so that whatever is wrong becomes right under their hands, under their circumstance, under their will to power, if only because it might provide happiness and pleasure for them…and they roam free of thought and restraint, as any other lower animals do, as any subhuman would.
I have no bitterness towards mankind. Mankind has been buried under subhumanity for so long. My bullets are towards the latter.
And I cannot disagree here. I have, in few posts, pointed out how my "prejudice" is not onto Americans alone, but many around the world, including the good ol'Europeans, Arabians, and the Iraqis in general.
I know you will disagree with this, but what separates us as human beings is the ability to rationalize, to overcome or at least control our primitive bents, in brief, to be able to ask questions, and plenty of them - to place suspicion where it is needed, to place a question mark and an exclamation point in more instances, to finally withhold periods and ends. That a sheer number of people are unable to communicate as such, unable to form themselves, to grow in such good fashion, to be of so much lacking, so much irrationality, so much...opinion! - it is not human - it is still primitive, still bent, still basic. This simplicity of existence, as demonstrated by people, constitutes humanity, whereas if a man abuses himself, his creativity, his spirit, when he exhausts his everything - that constitutes what is human, and I assure you, at that point, the produce of such a human being does not fall short of genius, creativity, passion, and life. Subhumanity is the majority. It fails to exhaust itself, and it has as its greatest aim happiness and pleasure, at any cost, at any life, at any lie. It is willing to go beyond the limits if only to gratify itself and its "liberty," completely unaware, completely lacking. We humans are inclined to underestimate the sheer dangerous these majorities and maximum number represent - they are the very icon of debauchery if there was any, they very cancer. Never does history fail to show us this, to tell us its ugly stories of these very libertine subhumans.
As I understand your position, your avoidance of such a pessimistic outlook and sharp prejudice - I tell you, or rather, remind you, that these…people…have stolen the world, that they have turned the axis of the Earth, of values, of all morality and liberty, they have turned life into their favor...so that whatever is wrong becomes right under their hands, under their circumstance, under their will to power, if only because it might provide happiness and pleasure for them…and they roam free of thought and restraint, as any other lower animals do, as any subhuman would.
I have no bitterness towards mankind. Mankind has been buried under subhumanity for so long. My bullets are towards the latter.
I think TICM was referring to the time before the Continental Army was set up - during the early parts of the war when it was just the Minute Men and state militias. I believe there were several cases where, under the cover of the woods or walls along the roads, they took "potshots" (if you will) at the columns of British soldiers marching to wherever.
Not sure why this matters when I get the impression from your posts (if you didn't say it outright) that you don't care whether others respect you or not...
D
DÛke
Guest
...
Spiderman, I don't care if I'm respected or not - in fact, I don't want to be respected by many people - that, however, does not suggest that I do not respect some people...it does not matter to me if they respect me back or not: it matters that they are good enough of human beings that I have the natural and unaffected willingness to respect them. And even then, such people are very...very...rare...
...I'm not sure if it "matters" much - perhaps I said that to show some certain, narrow-minded people around here that I am capable of respecting some people, that is, when these people show cleanness, uncorrupted, fresh air in their posts.
Spiderman, I don't care if I'm respected or not - in fact, I don't want to be respected by many people - that, however, does not suggest that I do not respect some people...it does not matter to me if they respect me back or not: it matters that they are good enough of human beings that I have the natural and unaffected willingness to respect them. And even then, such people are very...very...rare...
...I'm not sure if it "matters" much - perhaps I said that to show some certain, narrow-minded people around here that I am capable of respecting some people, that is, when these people show cleanness, uncorrupted, fresh air in their posts.
D
Dune Echo
Guest
Yeah, that did happen, just not in the amount that is usually shown in movies. That's what I'm attempting to convey (and didn't do very well obviously
).Actually, after reading your explanation, I understand your point of view. I personally would use different terminology is all. Instead of "subhuman", I call it "settling for less than the best" and yeah, people all over the world do it every day, all day long.
I'd like to respond to this with a comment that you're being too combative, but after reading your explanation above, I honestly see the WHYS of your approach. I'm not going to ask you to change your tone because that tone is apart of how you honestly feel. But, your tone and terminology is partially what is making others here feel combative back (if they weren't already). Will this solve any of the argument here? No, I don't think so. I'm just hoping that gives you insight (and everyone else) as to why this thread alone is so long and involved.
DUke: Maybe I wasn't thinking it though, but at the time a couple of hours ago, it just seemed to me that since you don't care about people respecting you, why should they care if you respect them? It was probably faulty logic though...
One glaring thing that jumped out at me on that statement though is that you said "founder", of which you've only really argued with one other (Ferret). I guess it was the seemingly automatic exclusion of everyone else that prompted me to comment on it at all.
One glaring thing that jumped out at me on that statement though is that you said "founder", of which you've only really argued with one other (Ferret). I guess it was the seemingly automatic exclusion of everyone else that prompted me to comment on it at all.
D
DÛke
Guest
I know you did this by accident, but the play on words here is very cute.
You said "that tone is apart of how you honestly feel" - which basically means it is not a part of how I honestly feel, but something execluding how I feel, apart from it. Very nice! Anyway...
DE, now...if I use different terminology to convey myself, would that not be dishonesty? Yes, it is dishonesty for the "good of the people," but with all due respect, I fail to see many who deserve my dishonesty - they all deserve blatancy, and why? - because they too are blatant, not with their words, but with the fanaticism in which they live their everyday life, the very extremes of idiocy and...well...to say it once more, the very extremes of subhumanity.
I find that comment to be innocent.
Have you not heard?-nothing in the world can change these people's minds - nothing can pull them up, nothing can "solve" much. I am beginning to believe that you are either born with the very simple talent for a little rationality, or you posses no rationality at all. But this too, can be subjected to the merciless "opinionness" of these people, and I would believe that they are the very first one's to ask, "but what is rationality?" - you see, they do not know. Well, now, they do not have to care at all if I respect them or not. Those I respect know themselves, whether they care or not...that is up to them. I guess I do not care if they cared at all.