anyone interested in a war/politic thread?

Off Topic Comments Area

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Napoléon
Sergeant
Posts: 18
Joined: Jul 29 2004
Location: Montréal

Post by Napoléon »

And you know that if there is an invasion of USA or/and Canada my friend, their will be no more country on Earth, so the subject is pointless...
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

"Napoléon
By the way Australia doesn't have USA close to protect them from Evil Nation's. Are they agress ? Do they have terrorism "

Me: Your kidding right ? You are aware that Australia and the US are allies right ?You are aware of just HOW much US military Equipment Australia has right ?
You are aware that the US and australia practice military exercises together right ?
You are aware that Australia and the US act to protect each other right ?And have and will in the future fight side by side right ?

YOU ARE aware that Australia WAS recently the victim of Muslim Terrorists right ?
You are aware of who David Hicks is right ?
You are aware of who Jack Rothe is right ?
You are aware that the Hizb Ut Tahrir is known to operate IN australia right ?
You are aware of the warnings issued by the Australian government about attacks expected to take place in Australia ,like this one
"The Minister for Justice, Senator Chris Ellison warned Australians today that their country is likely to become a target for a major terrorist attack within the next 2-3 months."Given sometime in 2002, right ?
How about the Australian "white paper"? You are aware of it right ?

Please tell you simply forgot these. That you had at least some clue of what you were talking about .Please ,please ,please tell me you were aware of some of that and simply "forgot" or something.


Oh , and what did you mean by "agress" ?Is that a typo ?I understand english is not your first language and just want to be sure what your saying.

"Napoléon:Even if I'm a separatist (Québec), I'm proud to say that I NEVER heird a Canadien prime minister talking about God will (or evil) like George W.Bush does. "

Umm, okay ,since you have ignored by offer the price has gone up.
I will qauranty a list of qoutes by Canadians governement officails INCLUDING past and present Prime minsters,calling on and or stating "God" is on there side, for the mere price of $5 us a piece.

However I am completely unsuprised by your total lack of knowledge of such qoutes, as your posts so far show, you are seem unaware of information pertaining to ALOT of what you talk about.
Napoléon
Sergeant
Posts: 18
Joined: Jul 29 2004
Location: Montréal

Post by Napoléon »

Tkobo wrote :
However I am completely unsuprised by your total lack of knowledge of such qoutes, as your posts so far show, you are seem unaware of information pertaining to ALOT of what you talk about.
Your totally right, I was wrong for the Australia, and I'm sorry about that. I should have checked my info before typing. Just typing "terrorism in Australia" on Google would have shown me the fact...

Yes, I do not know a lot about "politic" and those things, and to be honest with you, I don't know if one day I will find all they answer's I'm searching for. You see, I think that we all want's everyone to be better informed, so they can think and act like we do...

P.S. I'll be please to know you accept my appologize
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

No apology to me needed.

I live by google and other search engines.I forget soooo much, especially names and dates.
iamnick
Warrant Officer
Posts: 47
Joined: Apr 12 2004

Post by iamnick »

Napoléon wrote::D :D :D , now this.... it came out finally !!!

Iamnick said
liberal canada makes me sick! they let aljazzera play in canada but not foxnews! seems a little fishy. liberals lack morals and ethnics. dont worry if america fell, canada would be in troube, cos if america was invaded canada would be too.
Now we are exactly at the most critical part of the discussion here. I think you were the one who talked about the misery of the Jews and how palestinian where "stuburn" and Arafat don't really wan't peace. Well, I think we might have an exemple why the conflict (israel/arab) does not end. You say liberal in Canada lack morals and ethic !? Go tell that to the rest of the World and you will begin to understand why even if USA fall down Canada will stand up ! Or if we fall it will be because you pull us with you...

By the way Australia doesn't have USA close to protect them from Evil Nation's. Are they agress ? Do they have terrorism ?
if we can be defeated by a military, then canada would easily be defeated.
"FORGET WHAT THEY SAY, WATCH WHAT THEY DO"

"Courage is fear holding on a minute longer."
George S. Patton

Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers
Voltaire
Napoléon
Sergeant
Posts: 18
Joined: Jul 29 2004
Location: Montréal

Post by Napoléon »

Thanks Tkobo :) .

Iamnick wrote :
if we can be defeated by a military, then canada would easily be defeated.
Being a stategic fan, even tho I'm not a military encyclopedia, and know verry little, the subject still interest me. Gee! Do you think US could be invade ? And yep, Our military is damn weak, and this I'm sure. To my personal point of view, my opinion, is that it would be a mistake for Canada to invest more in military....I know we could argue and debat on that for long....and why not :wink: ? I'm an electronic technician, so my logic sense is by far greater than my "general knowledge", it is a shame. But there is my point of view on the need of Canadian Army.

Let's say I only take Canada view point :

Ok, the game start in 2004, I play Prime minister. Ok US and Canadian relation are verry good. Similar culture, language ....Anyway if US would military invade Canada (why? I don't know) nothing could even be close to stop them. And since roughly, and I said roughly, two century, there never been such a treath... And since we don't have military strengh, if they ever take our land by force their would be probably low destruction, pop and building, in comparaison of other war's... And after the fact done, their would be the diplomatic issues for US to solve... And thats where, to my point of view, US would hit a wall....

Taking those point into account, my terretorie (Canada) is damn large, verry large, compare to the population, and the money I have. Yes I got all the tech's I need, but spending money on my borders is logically wrong, and not productive. Cause it's impossible for me to match the US power at the border, I can't even come close. Instead I could use this money elsewhere. Because on my border's is wasted money..

But military could be use to help my most, and by far important allie and friend : the US (to my point of view). We do it already, a little, and could do more yes. But, I don't wanna lose my next election, and A LOT of people in my country are oppose with big invest in military and oppose helping US in Irak. A lot of them or concern with the "usual" and constant (to my point of view) inconditional approval of US intervention (from Canada). Sound's like this: Ok , US is in war, they ask help, if we don't their not going to crush us but, economicly they can play with us, on comercial issues. Things like woods and other stuff. Like oups, they close their border because our woods industries have to much gouv. help and other stuff. We export something like 70% of our goods in US.... But than, Canadian ask, gee! our we a country are not ? Can we decided if we wanna go are not (are US invade? on sept 11, yes and we went for Afghanistan) And their's the, "under ground" fear (to my point of view) that, since Canadian, culture, borders, economy, diplomacy are so close from US, that we could be assimilate, are maybe already are.

So the liberal, wich are in power, and don't wanna lose power have to please the pop. Why the canadian pop desire those things ? I don't know. The USA country wich count I don't know 269 millions pop. half of it vote for republican. An more then a half (you will tell me) of 269 millions US pop. or pro Iraq so over 135 "brain" have analyse the "ethical", the "morality" situation and said yes for Iraq. In Canada 33 millions (roughly) brain. Even if all of them compute the pro and con for Iraq war and say it's immoral, illegal bla bla bla. So 33 million brain said no and 135 brain yes. My democratic reflex is well, a lots of brain think that's moral ? Then it should me ? or is it ?

Hope you understood my chinese :wink:!


I'm waiting for the USA point of view... :wink:
XeroMan
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 221
Joined: Aug 15 2002
Location: Newfoundland

Sigh

Post by XeroMan »

Xeroman:
Wow, my opinion of your "stance" contiues to ,umm, said nicely, "change".
You continue to try and place things you THINK I imply and contiue to ignore what i actaully say.
I am becoming more and more convinced you do this without knowing it becuase you have no other way to support your irrational viewpoints and your biases force you to try.
You continue to make blanket statements that ARE clearly biased to the point of hatred against the US offering them as fact but giving NO evidence to back up your irrational claims.
You spout more inaccuracies in this tread than some politicains do in a week.

It must be a simple little world for you. The US is evil. They are corrupt and can and will do nothing good.

So even though I am now firmly convinced your biase agaisnt the US and Isreal rules your rationale more than fact, i will yet again set out to correct you on those things you did not concede yet.
I’ve seen this tactic used many times tkobo – anyone who dissents with said argument must be an extremist. The “You hate America line” is not only flat out wrong, it’s getting old. If you read what I wrote, than you must realize that your charge is baseless. So which is it tkobo – you didn’t read what I wrote, you didn’t understand what I wrote, or are you deliberately misstating my position? Oh, and if you are going to cut and paste from my posts to prove your point, don’t take things out of context. That’s called good manners.
~~~~
2)Sorry, but you continue to be wrong on this.
definitions of research:
a:To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner:
b:Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry.
c:Close, careful study

You'll notice , I hope, some simple words in the definitions.
"Accurate" "Scientific" "cafeful"
In case your still somehow unsure,those words mean that the person doing the action (research) is NOT only choosing the things that support his cause.

Your argument is flawed. You’ve chosen to take an extremely narrow view of the definition in order to support your position. Sadly, when you look at the definition you listed, it does not even support the statement you just made. “Close, careful study” alone is a very broad statement that covers what you, Nick and myself are doing when we do our “research”. Be rational.
~~~~
And since you mention semantics, perhaps you should do some research on the man credited with the creation of western sematics,a polish gentleman by the name of Alfred Korzybski(sp).
One thing in particular he said will hold severe importance to your misinterpretation of the word.
"The word is NOT the thing". Once you understand what he means by this, you "should" be able to get past your problem with definiations.
“Common usage” Let’s not become grammar Nazi’s – that is the fallback position of someone who can’t debate the issue.
~~~~
3)please try to ignore any strange impressions you get, and focus soley on what i said.It will prevent yuo from being so wrong so often in this thread.
Well, so far you haven’t proven anything yet.
~~~~
First off, simply becuase some people consider someone to be a scholar, does NOT mean everyone does.
Next,TIME is not the measure of a scholar .Knowledge AND accuracy are.

Can’t you see the fallacy implied by your statement? Yes, knowledge and accuracy are the benchmarks – but they are gathered over time… tkobo, your desire to twist things in order to refute them is reaching new lows. Or are you incapable of following the simple logic?
~~~~
Any man may possess knowledge and accuracy,though as your claims and statements show in this thread of yourself,any man may also let his biases prevent him from such.
I’m biased, are you? Really, these threads have stopped talking about what you believe, and have turned to an all out assault on my beliefs. Intolerance is a sign of a lazy mind.
~~~~
4)your welcome again.May i somehow manage to correct the rest of your irrational stances.
Again , as i state in an above post and in this post itself already . PLEASE dont let the strange impressions OR personally concieved "tones" interfer with what is actaulty said.
Now for the first part of this lovely little number.
Your welcome for the "clarification".You obviously needed it.The reason being you needed it, was of course as you yourself admit.You "saw" a tone and ignored the words themselves.
Are you saying that words cannot convey a tone, an emotion? Again, your argument flies in the face of reason, merely so you can get a jab in. But yes, do get on with it – now that the insults are out of the way (although taking my thanks regarding the clarification and using that to insult me… I’m disappointed in you, again).
~~~~
Part two of thise lovely little number.
THE INSTANT they cause delay of any sort in any help arriving to those who need it they become partly responsible for what ever occurs in that time.
You’re stating your stance here… can you provide some more details, fill out your position on this please? I understand the gist of it, but I wouldn’t want to comment on it unless you are more specific (ie: provide some examples that I can address).
~~~~
Part three of this lovely little number.
I dont represent any such thing.Ill let Nick speak for himself instead of putting words in his mouth or intentions in his heart like you have done many times in this thread.
To be honest, you’ve lost me here. To what are you referring? It doesn’t seem to correspond to the numbers from your previous post (Point #3 was regarding scholars). Collect your thoughts tkobo, and present them in a coherent fashion. I shouldn’t need a roadmap to follow your post.
~~~~
The very stance that i say multiple times in this thread that war IS NOT always the answer clearly shows I am no extremist.But again, you have NO WAY to show I am by what ive said so YOUR biase forces you to create in your own mind tones,impressions,assuptions,etc.. in an attempt to do so.
Please point out where I stated your position is for war as the only answer. You didn’t here, instead you insinuate it by talking about my bias. Again tkobo, you’re twisting my argument, and screaming bias. Hey, I admit my bias, but if I’ve misunderstood my position it may be that you just need to spend more time stating your position rather than pointing out how biased I am, hate the US, etc.
~~~~
I see you continue to ramble on about how the US is a completely self absorbed entity with purely selfish motives.
Its okay,your biases over power your reason and hurt your stance.
The statements alone show your warped frame of mind on this topic and let those who read it catch a glimpse of just where your coming from.
Again, you misrepresent me. I’ve made it quite clear that I actually like America, but hate the administration. I’ve maintained that position from the beginning. Wait, you haven’t inferred from my words some sort of tone, have you? No, that would be hypocritical.
~~~~
5)Nice to see you agree and understand you were yet again wrong.Its these rare instances that give me hope for you viewpoint becoming less irrational.
If this is in reference to #5, then again you show you lack of manners. I have not conceded any fact that supports my position (maybe because you don’t refute them), merely that I misunderstood your position. The entire point of reasoned debate is to explore the others position, and adjust accordingly. I misunderstood your position, you clarified, I acknowledged. The next step is to move on. I can admit I’m wrong, can you? I don’t get that impression – this has become personal for you it seems, and you won’t back down. Like I predicted, this is like talking about religion.
~~~~
6)Again, ignore these "seems" that creep into your mind.Like the self created and induced assuptions,percieved tones,et.. theyonly work to prevent you from actually reading and understanding the ACTUAL words written.
Here you again make the absurd claim that i beleive the world should bow to ANY antion, let alone the US.
but thats your biase controlliing your reason yet again.Even though i clearly state otherwise you are compelled by your biase to believe what you want when you want regardless of the inaccuracy of your beliefs.
Its not hard to see why you have some problems with the definition of "research".
Can you see the point of it? I make a statement about your position, and you should respond with something to clarify your position. Instead, you resort to insults. STATE your position! Damn it man, debate, don’t sling mud!
~~~~
7)Im glad your gald to hear it.It does my heart good to see another example of how you can come to see your statements made were wrong.
Yet again, you demonstrate that you are incapable of the normal give-and-take in a debate.
~~~~
8)It wasnt open to interpretation. It was words put down in a clear mannor.That you again choose to give them a meaning of your own choice based on other experiences with other people is yet another example of how your biase affects you judgement.
And yes, you were "bad" in doing so
But again , on a positive note,you did at least see some of what you did wrong.Again hope raises it head.
I gave them meaning again? Did you read the post? I was referring to your original statement, explaining how I reached my conclusions. I further explained why I reached that conclusion – you know, that “understanding” thing… I realize now my biggest mistake was trying to be reasonable with you. I disagreed with your beliefs, and therefore you are not interested in a reasoned debate – you’re seeing red. Again, my bad.
~~~~
9)Examples are easy to find.What did the UN do about Bosnia,Somalia,Afganistan,.What is it NOW doing about Sudan,an issue that has been goign on for over a year now.
The answer to all of the above is simple.They did next to nothing.They did NOWHERE near what they should have done and people suffered and died due to thier inaction.
They failed to do so,which i think we both agree on becuase of the structure of the UN.
Have you ever read the UN charters own policy for responsiblity of actions of the security council ?

-- Investigate any situation threatening international peace;
-- Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute;
-- Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations; and
-- Enforce its decisions militarily, if necessary.
That’s just it – those examples demonstrate that there needed to be troops on the ground, which falls under the SC. The US is well known for its reluctance to get entangled in other countries conflicts unless it has something to gain. But then the entire point is that the UN is a failure… My stance is this: The UN has great potential, but it is wasted. The US wants it as a political pawn, and if the UN doesn’t play along the US will try and screw it.
~~~~
Notice if you will the last responsibility.yet for over ten years they failed to enforce thier decisions about Iraq.
Mass amounts of people die every year at the hand of thier own governments,yet the UN has next to never been the first to send in troops to enforce its decisions in such cases.
The Korea conflict being the one case in which they and did, and they were only able to due so becuase russia walked out INSTEAD of blocking the measure that allowed the UN to use military force in korea.had russia acted intelligently instead of emotionally they would have blocked the measure and yet again the UN would have failed to live up to its very own charter.
That’s what I was referring to… the veto power of the permanent SC members makes the UN useless.
~~~~
Now to any rational person,mass amounts of people being killed by thier own government because of biases on the govenments part,would clearly
call for the full spectrum of responsible actions listed by the UN security councils own charter.Yet it doesnt happen.And as we both have now said a few times,the reason it doesnt happen is because of the structure of the UN itself.
However I, unlike you,dont blame the US for everything wrong with the UN.The imense blame there goes fully to all nations in the UN.To single one of these nations out,and blame them for everythimg is just biase speaking.Its irrational.
Well, gee, where did I place all the blame on the US? However, as you yourself have pointed out, the US is the biggest contributor, and for damned sure it tries to run the UN. Does any third world country have the influence of the US? No. Russia, France, UK and China are share responsibility for the UN’s failure, but the US leads the pack by a comfortable margin. They pulled ahead under Bush.
~~~~
10)The "world stage IS NOT a real thing. It is an ever changing amalgram (sp) of opinions more often than not baised on biase instead of fact.
My wording on this explanation could indeed have been more clear.Sorry about that.
I’ll have to take back what I have stated previously.
~~~~
As for how the Iraq governement was NOT a direct threat to the US im at a loss for words on how even your biased viewpoint could come to such a conlusion.
Did the Iraqi president HIMSELF not plan an assassination of the first President Bush ??
Which I would point out was in Kuwait… Assassinating a leader is an attack (Israel anyone?) but in itself does not represent a dire threat to the US. Alone, this is no reason at all to invade another country.
Did the Iraqi military not start TWO wars, one of which the US had to spend time ,money and lives to stop ??
First off, the Iran-Iraq war was a proxy war for the US. You have some chutzpah to use that in your justification for invading! Secondly, the first Gulf war prompted the sanctions which crippled Iraq. Iraq was not a credible threat when GWII was launched. Hell, if it was it would not have been such an easy win. So unless revenge/punishment is justification for an invasion, this point isn’t valid.
~~~~
Did the Iraqi military under orders from its own government NOT shoot at american and coalition aircraft on a regular basis.Aircraft whos very reason for being there was to prevent the Iraqi government from killing yet even MORE of its own citizens ??
Yes, they did shoot at aircraft, to no effect. Those sites were dealt with. Again, is this justification for invasion?
~~~~
Any rational person could not help but see threat in ALL three of those situations.The only two major other reasons likely for NOT seeing this would be biase and mental blindness.
Also just why wasnt the UN itself protecting Iraqs people from its own government ?The answer is of course what even we two manage to agree on, the UN structure is a joke.
Ahhh, but this is difference of scale. All three are examples of Iraqi aggression, but they all underscore how ineffectual that aggression was. Iraq threatened, but as a country was not a threat. They were contained by the brutal sanctions. The underlying issue is of course the invasion of Iraq, and my position remains that the justification was not there. And don’t talk about all the people starving – that was a direct result of the sanctions. Invasion was bad idea – the world was against it (The war is extremely unpopular with the citizens of the other countries in the “coalition”) with the governments of the UK, Spain, Australia and Italy being the most substantial supporters. The US pretty much went it alone (they provided the lion’s share of funding, troops, etc) – and the president had to lie in order to get it rolling. Nick likes to talk about how the Democrats waffle, well, what about Bush?
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

So it was with Iraq – it was WMD, then it was Al Qaeda, then finally it was to save the people of Iraq. Bush the humanitarian to the rescue? Come on!
Lastly in what warped mind can the Nazi invasion and conquest of other nations,be the same as the invasion of Iraq by America and allies so that IRAQ COULD SET UP ITS OWN GOVERMENT ?
Gee, you got me there tkobo. What was I thinking? Invading a country without just cause, with only a few allies while the rest of the world condemns the action… why would that comparison come to mind?
Wow, the Iraqi’s have their own government? I forgot… It’s good they have something they can call their own after all the laws passed by the CPA specifically prohibiting the new government from changing policies that the CPA put in place regarding the Iraqi infrastructure. The government is as sovereign as India during the height of British colonialism. You buy that crap from the administration? Iraq is being raped economically.
Hell, even if the Iraq government was truly sovereign, the world knows that the front man is an ex-CIA operative! Who’s your daddy? The US has maintained it’s long tradition of installing dictatorships that toe the American line. And don’t mention elections until they happen.
~~~~
Are you trying to claim that the Nazi's allowed people to pick their own government after conquering them OR allow them self rule??
Well, Vichy France jumps to mind as a rough approximation.
~~~~
11 &12)My hostility may rise as the post goes on.I do try very hard to prevent such though.
BUT unfortunately as the jibberish you continue to post as your stance continues to grow in its irrational biase,more and more effort is required to remember you are a person,and not a stance.
To remind myself that all the dislike(bording on hate) you continue to spew,and the illogic and irrational statements you make in support of
your clearly biased and incorrect views, do NOT make it right to treat you badly without dirrect cause.
That despite the serious flaws shown by your biases you are still indeed a person simply making incorrect biase statements that need to be corrected and should be treated as nicely as possile while correcting you.
Hopefully it will rub off on you and you will treatt others the same way and diminish the biase that controls you on certain topics.
Let us be civil then. Along that line, will you stop complaining about the bias, the gibberish, etc, and stick to the substance of the issue? It’s obvious I’ve worked you up, but there is a distinction between screaming red-faced at someone, and talking in a reasoned, calm tone. One contributes to meaningful discussion, the other does not. That is an analogy by the way.
~~~~
1.3 billion dollars is NOTHING compared to what the US has and contiues to pay the UN to waste the worlds time, money and effort.More money will in NO way make the UN more productive.It will simply give them more money that they will waste most of.
Numbers please. It must be very substantial for a billion and change to be irrelevant.
~~~~
Xeroman:"Now the US has the right to spend it’s money any damn way it pleases – but as the biggest boy on the block they carry their share of the weight."

Make up your mind here.Either as you state they have the right or dont.
It says something that you actaully critisie the US (and yes , agaion ONLY the US) for exercising one of its rights.
To say that I have to “make up my mind” implies that the two statements are in conflict. They are not. There are two statements there – The first being the US can choose to spend it’s money how it please, the second being that the US has the responsibility as the biggest player to give the biggest contribution. Your point is spurious.
yet another CLEAR indication of your biase over whelming your reason.You even contradict YOURSELF about a nations very rights because that nation in the US and you dislike it.
On a positive side,it does show that somewhere deep in your biased mind ,there is a part of you still trying to fight its way free and express some reason.On the negative side, like in most cases with your statements in this post, that reasonable side is being ovewerwhemled by your biase.
Yet another shining example of how you twist something, then run off complaining of bias, etc, etc. Calm down – this is pure anger talking and is not rational.
~~~~
And please dont continue to whine and then claim the US should pay even more to the UN, an organization that you yourself not only say is structured so as to be ineffective,BUT the US should pay more for something YOU claim they want to fail anyway ?????

Thats some insanely twisted logic you put forth there.
Speaking of twisted… My stand, as I have CLEARLY stated is that the SC is at the heart of the UN’s problems. Fine, I know you disagree with that. The UN is ineffective. During the cold war the US and Russia placed a great deal of stress on the UN. Post cold war the US has set the tone for the world. With Bush, the UN haters have one of their own in the Whitehouse. Bush sure the hell doesn’t respect the UN. The US does pay some of its dues, but it sure the hell isn’t working to make the UN into what it was supposed to be.
~~~~
"Xeroman:As for me blaming the US for everything? Well, it’s a love hate thing I guess"

Well, with you and some others in the world controlled by thier baises its clearly a hate thing at least.I fail however to see the love side, as til this very last post of yours you have NOT said a single good thing about the US.
And even then you contradict your self.In case your UNSURE ,american culture in firmly rooted in corporations ,capatilism and ecomnomic growth.
you remeber these things right ?
They are the same things you spouted irrational claims of total self absorbance and corruption about.
Hmmm, earlier you were screaming about how I misrepresented your viewpoint, then you go and basically ignore the words I stated to provide your own view of what I feel. This has not been a reasoned debate – hell, this isn’t a debate. You’re using the ol’ Republican smear tactic. The classic “Why do you hate America so much” crap. We’ve been focused on what I don’t like, and you’re hammering on those. I’ve mentioned what I love (and the world looked to), but haven’t had time to elaborate. Your so full of venom, it’s hard to focus on the positive.
I reject flat out your view of America. Modern corporations, an unfettered free market are not what America stands for. What is the “American Dream”? It is many things – the belief that if you work hard, you will be rewarded amply. The belief in freedom, the freedom to choose your lifestyle, the freedom to rise to a higher station based upon one’s merits as opposed to one’s birthright. Equality. Justice. These are all ideals that shape the American dream. Consumerism also plays into it – the chance to have a better life than what you could have in other countries. The chance to buy the neat gadgets, buy that home with a big yard and inground swimming pool. The chance to make a better life for themselves and their family. Modern corporations and unchecked capitalism stand in opposition to those ideas.
~~~~
"Xeroman:Do you truly believe that you are better off than you were 4 years ago???? Honestly??? "
Yes i do.And that comes from an american LIVING in america who owns and participates in a family run business as well as 3 other part time jobs.From an american who deals with hundreds of people a day on some days each week , again on a regular basis.
From an american who has NO political gain from either party winning in the next elections.
From an american who will work for as many as 4 different companies in some weeks, on a regular basis so far this year.
Now being that you are simply a biased person living in another country with,sorry to say,little to NO clue about how things are in america,i will give you some examples.
I was waiting for this – the ol’ “You’re not an American, so shut up!” tactic. True, I don’t live in America, but I spend hours each day reading about America on blogs, newspapers, and other websites. I’m not disputing your view from the street, but on the other hand I’m going to point out that it is just that, a view.
~~~~
Minimum wage has gone up,and is higher than it ever has been.
Image
In straight out dollars, yes. Adjusted for inflation, cost of living, etc. No.
~~~~
Taxes have gone down.And are currently lower than in the previous 6 years.I know, the house assessments where just done in the area I live in for the first time in over 15 years for some of us.And you know what,15 years later,despite an addition of a deck 5 years ago, my tax assessment went DOWN.
In fact out of the 6 direct nieghbors i have on my street,5 of them had their assessments go down.
Ummm, yeah, Bush cut taxes. Have you ever heard the word “deficit” before? I won’t even bother posting a image or a link – just google “US federal debt” and that should be enough of an answer. Where do you have your head buried??? Your taxes going down should scare the living hell out of you!! Think man, for just a minute! Regardless, enjoy it while it lasts – this short term bubble is going to come at a terrible price. If your state hasn’t raised taxes to cover the federal shortfall, it’s cut a lot of programs instead.
~~~~
There is not only more jobs available now than in the last 4 years,BUT new jobs are appearing at a higher rate also.
Even the biggest problems seen by many,oil,gas and energy prices are lower than in the past.Now Im not currently sure how they stack up over the last 4 year period, BUT I KNOW they are currently lower than they were in some periods of the late 70's.
In fact although they recently spiked due to problems in russia,they only reached a 20 year high.
OR IN OTHER WORDS, at sometime beyond the last 20 years the prices for these resources were higher.
Unless a lot more jobs are created by November, Bush will become the first president since the Great Depression to have had a net loss of jobs during his term. Hey, I’m happy that your life is going swell though.
As an aside, it should be mentioned that those stats they throw around about the unemployment rate are misleading – they only include those people who are looking for work. There are a lot of able Americans who have given up looking for a job, and therefore are no longer counted. Stats can be misleading.
~~~~
This brings up a serious point you,not being american and living in the US for the last 40+ years would not be aware of without doing unbiased research.Which of course I greatly question your ability to do on such a topic.
That point is,not only am i better off now than 4 years ago. I as an american living in america am better off now than i was 30 years ago.
Again, playing the same old game. Whenever you don’t have a leg to stand on, you attack not the issue, but me. I’m biased. I can’t know about America. I have twisted logic. And so on. Fine, you think you’re better off. That’s your right. Blind patriotism at it’s best.
The US is in a constant state of fear with terror alerts. How many terror alerts were there 4 years ago?
How many American soldiers were dying daily 4 years ago? (Hmm, this doesn’t impact your life though)
How big was the federal deficit 4 years ago? Here’s a new word for you: Surplus.
What was the US’s standing in the world? (Hmm, again, this doesn’t impact your life)
So I guess there it is – I’m looking at the US as a whole, you’re looking at your little slice of it. Both viewpoints are valid. I’ll let you get back to yours.
In fact its this very fact that makes so many people around the world strive to live here.
My cousin from Ireland ,just became a citizen roughly 1 1/2 years ago.He came because despite how well Ireland treats it citizens in many ways, america offered far more than his home (ireland).
That is the soft power I talked about. It’s taking a beating though. What is a good thing for America is that reasonable people will realize that Bush does not represent the America people.
~~~~
You continue to post both of things you have NO clue and of things you wont see correctly due to your biase.
You continue to insult people,attacking them instead of what they say.
You continue to inuslt a nation you dislike, even admit to hating it all basied on your biased view of the world.
You contradict YOURSELF in the attempt to prove your innane statements.
Are we in public school? You’re projecting tkobo – doing something then pointing at me and accusing that I’m doing it. Get real!
~~~~
But have no fear. I will continue to show up and correct you.I will continue to try and reach past your biase and ignorance of many of the things you state.
Experience makes me believe that you will be back, again, and again, but always to put me in my place, not to have a reasonable discussion. This is a grudge match for you - I’ve seen it before elsewhere with others.
I for the most part am patient and understand you cant help yourself.
I however, being a good american and more important a good PERSON will contiue to fight the losing fight in an attempt to help you.

Ahem… you are anything but understanding and patient. Don’t lie to yourself. This is another tactic used by those who don’t have a leg to stand on – proclaiming loudly that they are this or that (insert appropriate virtue). Just like Fox news is “Fair and Balanced” eh?
Last edited by XeroMan on Jul 31 2004, edited 2 times in total.
XeroMan
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 221
Joined: Aug 15 2002
Location: Newfoundland

Post by XeroMan »

iamnick wrote: liberal canada makes me sick! they let aljazzera play in canada but not foxnews! seems a little fishy. liberals lack morals and ethnics. dont worry if america fell, canada would be in troube, cos if america was invaded canada would be too.
A Freeper is as a Freeper does. You're showing your true colours Nick.
FYI - Al-jazeera here is censored, Fox is not.
XeroMan
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 221
Joined: Aug 15 2002
Location: Newfoundland

Aha!

Post by XeroMan »

Napoléon:, please be honest, with the military strengh of US, it's overall power and all those "small war" they did(korea,vietnam..) don't you think that's rather tiny ? Honestly, If US should invade once a banana republic (no ressource and interest) and put a good gouvernment, I would move right away to live in your country !!!

Me: Umm, who says we'd want you ?You calling Korea a small war ?Please take some time and USE the wonderful tool of the net and your own mind do some research before you say things like that.
I’ve got you pegged tkobo – that statement “Who says we’d want you” says it all. Check out Free Republic – you’ll find yourself right at home. If you don’t know how to get there, ask Nick.
XeroMan
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 221
Joined: Aug 15 2002
Location: Newfoundland

Post by XeroMan »

Napoléon:,I think that where there is ressource is better to have puppett's and dictator : It's cheaper to bribe than a strong democracy !!!

Me: I can imagine why youd say something like this, except possibly as a joke.
I think he was referring to Bush's quote that it would be better if America was a dictatorship, and he was the dictator.
If not that, then maybe he was referring to America's track record of supporting coups in democratic countries (they voted left wing!!!) and replacing them with dictators...
Could be either one.
XeroMan
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 221
Joined: Aug 15 2002
Location: Newfoundland

Post by XeroMan »

Napoléon: And for the religion thing's, I think that the most powerfull man in the world, the president have no right to tell he know's from god. And I'm fascinated and scared to see educated, free and democratic american people pass over such statements. I'm sorry to tell you that, and I know I will be denounce and attacked, but the situation make me think a bit of germany in the 30'40'.

Me: I agree somewhat with what you say. I DO WONDER why you didnt collect qoutes from other nations in which THEIR leaders also invoked the name of "god" for thier causes.
Why is it ,you only looked at Bushs ?

Well, in the very longest reach possible the statements by Bush claiming "gods" purposes and will, do have something in common with the stupid things ***** said at thier time.As do anyone who claims such things.
America preaches religious tolerance, and rightly so - it's enshrined in the bill of rights. There is a defacto rule separating Church and State.
If you're going to preach, you better be a role-model of the values you preach. Not only is Bush not that, he is hardly a role-model for the religion he espouses. WWJD - What would Jesus do? Who would Jesus bomb? Who would Jesus execute? Put up or shut up - which the GOP never does. They scream about the erosion of family values and point at the Democrats - when your side has more than it's fair share of pigs. Jack Ryan anyone? Newt? Your side constantly looks at your own sins, then projects them onto the Democrats. And the GOP gets more shameless every year.
XeroMan
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 221
Joined: Aug 15 2002
Location: Newfoundland

Post by XeroMan »

However,it is the longest reach possible,and it goes no futher.
AND again , I wonder why you only felt the need to collect such qoutes from Bush.
Ill tell you what, for a mere 10 cents a qoute, i will compile a staggering amount of such qoutes from leaders all over the world.Including Canadians.
And again I will only require you to pay me 10cents for each qoute.
How about it ?
Surely your education is worth a mere 10 cents per qoute ?
Or you could simply do the research yourself.Something i ask of you alot it seems.Sorry.
I challenge you to find another world leader who sounds as stupid as Bush.

"I don't want nations feeling like that they can bully
ourselves and our allies. I want to have a ballistic defense
system so that we can make the world more peaceful, and at
the same time I want to reduce our own nuclear capacities to
the level commiserate with keeping the peace."
—Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 23, 2000

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take
dream."
—LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

"If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for,
then I'm for it."
—St. Louis, Mo., October 18, 2000

"Our priorities is our faith."
—Greensboro, N.C., Oct. 10, 2000

"I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial
profiling, which is illiterate children."
—Second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000

"It's going to require numerous IRA agents."
—On Gore's tax plan, Greensboro, N.C., Oct. 10, 2000

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to
answer questions. I can't answer your question."
—In response to a question about whether he wished he could take back any of his answers in the
first debate. Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000

... I've been talking to Vicente Fox, the new president of Mexico... I know him... to have gas and oil sent to U.S.... so we'll not depend on foreign oil...
-- on the first Presidential debate, 10/03/2000

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
—Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy."
—Redwood, Calif., Sept. 27, 2000

"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations
rise above that which is expected." --Los Angeles, Sept. 27, 2000

"The best way to relieve families from time is to let them keep some
of their own money." —Westminster, Calif., Sept.13, 2000

"They have miscalculated me as a leader."—Westminster, Calif., Sept.13, 2000

"Listen, Al Gore is a very tough opponent. He is the incumbent. He represents the incumbency. And a challenger is somebody who generally comes from the pack and wins, if you're going to win. And that's where I'm coming from."
—Detroit, Sept. 7, 2000

"I regret that a private comment I made to the vice presidential candidate made it through the public airways." —Allentown, Pa., Sept. 5, 2000. (After getting caught by a mic his comment that a NYT reporter was an "a**hole)

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do
it, that's trustworthiness."—Allentown, Pa., Sept. 5, 2000

"This case has had full analyzation and has been looked at a lot.
I understand the emotionality of death penalty cases."
--Seattle Post-Intelligencer, June 23, 2000 (In response to the charge that he laughed at a death row inmates plea for leniency)

"I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone
who brings people together."—Bartlett, Tenn., Aug. 18, 2000

"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've read —
I understand reality. If you're asking me as the president, would I understand reality, I do."
— On abortion, Hardball, MSNBC; May 31, 2000

"The only things that I can tell you is that every case I have reviewed I have been comfortable with the innocence or guilt of the person that I've looked at. I do not believe we've put a guilty ... I mean innocent person to death in the state of Texas." — All Things Considered, NPR, June 16, 2000

"The fact that he relies on facts—says things that are not factual — are going to undermine his campaign." — New York Times, March 4, 2000

"Laura and I really don't realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis." — Meet the Press, April 15, 2000

"Other Republican candidates may retort to personal attacks and negative ads."
— Fund-raising letter from George W. Bush, quoted in the Washington Post, March 24, 2000

"People make suggestions on what to say all the time. I'll give you an example; I don't read what's handed to me. People say, 'Here, here's your speech, or here's an idea for a speech.' They're changed. Trust me."
— Interview with the New York Times, March 15, 2000
That much is obvious!!!

"And you know, I think if people are satisfied with the status quo out of Washington, the tone, the attitude, if Al Gore's message is, you know, vote for me, I'm going to -- I'm going to extend the Clinton-Gore era for another four years, if that's what people want, that's what reform -- people who think they want reform want, then it's going to -- you know, it's a tough vote for me to get." -- Press Conference, March 9

"My plan is one, by the way, joined by Democrats as well as Republicans, that understands by taking advantage of the compounding rate of interest, younger workers will be able to have some -- have benefits that are -- that we anticipate a promise for the long run."
-- Interview, Fox news, May 18

"The senator has got to understand if he's going to
have — he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road."
—To reporters in Florence,S.C., Feb. 17, 2000

"How do you know if you don't measure if you have a system that simply suckles kids through?"
— Explaining the need for educational accountability
in Beaufort, S.C., Feb.16, 2000

"I do not agree with this notion that somehow if I go to try to attract votes and to lead people toward a better tomorrow somehow I get subscribed to some — some doctrine gets subscribed to me."
— Meet The Press, Feb. 13, 2000

"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"
— Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000

"This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation.
It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve."—Speaking during "Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H. As quoted in the Los Angeles Times,
Jan. 28, 2000

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
— Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000

"We must all hear the universal call to like your neighbor just like you like to be liked yourself."At a South Carolina oyster roast, as quoted in the Financial Times, Jan. 14, 2000

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"—
Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"Keep good relations with the Grecians."
—Quoted in the Economist, June 12, 1999

"And I am an optimistic person. I guess if you want to try to find something to be pessimistic about, you can find it, no matter how hard you look, you know?" —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., June 15, 2004

"I want to thank my friend, Senator Bill Frist, for joining us today. You're doing a heck of a job. You cut your teeth here, right? That's where you started practicing? That's good. He married a Texas girl, I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me." —George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., May 27, 2004

"Like you, I have been disgraced about what I've seen on TV that took place in prison." —George W. Bush, Parkersburg, West Virginia, May 13, 2004

"The march to war hurt the economy. Laura reminded me a while ago that remember what was on the TV screens — she calls me, 'George W.' — 'George W.' I call her, 'First Lady.' No, anyway — she said, we said, march to war on our TV screen." —George W. Bush, Bay Shore, New York, Mar. 11, 2004
XeroMan
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 221
Joined: Aug 15 2002
Location: Newfoundland

Anyways, to get back on track....

Post by XeroMan »

Let me take the chance to refocus on some issues.

Where do you stand on the Prison abuse scandal?
On the no-bid contracts for Halliburton?
On the civilians in the Pentagon, and their planning of the war?
The insurgency? Fallujah?
On the fact that there were no WMD?
Or the fact that Saddam had no links to Bin-Laden?
On the fact that Bush dismisses Bin Laden as unimportant?
The number of civilians killed by the coalition?
The re-surgent opium production in Afghanistan, and the general mess that country is?

The list can go on and on, but this is a good start.
I’m interested, how many insults will you feel obligated to hurl, how long will you whine about my bias before you address these issues? Let me know where you stand, and why you support your stance.
Last edited by XeroMan on Jul 31 2004, edited 1 time in total.
XeroMan
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 221
Joined: Aug 15 2002
Location: Newfoundland

Post by XeroMan »

Here's something for you Nick
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 6688055060

Seems Israel has a recurring problem with respecting other countries passports... tsk, tsk, tsk! But in a way, it's an honour - they choose Canadian passports because the people of the world like us. :D
XeroMan
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 221
Joined: Aug 15 2002
Location: Newfoundland

Post by XeroMan »

Gee whiz, here is that free Iraq you were talking about!
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?act ... itemid=746
Allawi has reportedly established a committee to draw up restrictions called "red lines" that will apply to print and broadcast media. These include restrictions on the printing or broadcasting of unwarranted criticism of the prime minister himself.

But hey, with "1st amendment zones/free speech zones" in the US, why not? It's not as if freedom to express one's viewpoint is necessary, is it? Different viewpoints serve no purpose other than pissing off the the people who are "RIGHT", eh? Yeah, Bush sure has restored dignitude to the Whitehouse!
Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic Comments”