Obama defends war as he picks up Nobel Peace Prize
President Barack Obama has said the US must uphold moral standards when waging wars that are necessary and justified, as he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize.
In his speech in Oslo, he defended the US role in Afghanistan, arguing the use of force could bring lasting peace.
He also said his accomplishments were slight compared with other laureates.
Mr Obama was given the prize in October for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples".
Thursday's ceremony in the Norwegian capital came days after Mr Obama announced he was sending 30,000 extra US soldiers to the war in Afghanistan.
There was a mixed reaction when he was named as the winner of this year's prize, becoming the fourth US president to be given the honour.
Mr Obama's elevation to the rank of fellow laureates such as Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King, before he has even spent a year in office, has sparked fierce debate.
Critics also said it was inappropriate for the honour to go to the commander-in-chief of a country involved in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Acknowledging the controversy, Mr Obama said he accepted the award with humility, adding: "Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize... my accomplishments are slight."
He could not argue with those who said many previous laureates were "far more deserving" of the honour than him, he said.
Defending his Afghan troop deployment, Mr Obama said there were times when "the use of force [was] not only necessary but morally justified," as long as force was proportionate and civilian casualties minimised.
"Instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace", he said.
"A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies," he added. "Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms."
He said the US "must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war" to differentiate it from "a vicious adversary that abides by no rules".
Mr Obama also emphasised alternatives to violence, stressing the importance of diplomacy and sanctions to confront nations like Iran and North Korea over their nuclear programmes.
While Russia and America were working to reduce their nuclear stockpiles, he said the international community must ensure Tehran and Pyongyang did not "game the system".
"Let us reach for the world that ought to be," Mr Obama said. "We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace."
He paid tribute to anti-government demonstrators in Iran, Burma and Zimbabwe, and said the US would always stand on the side of those who sought freedom.
Protests
Some anti-war demonstrators gathered outside city hall, where the ceremony was held.
"We are protesting against him because... we don't think he is a man of peace," one of them told AFP news agency.
Amid high security, the US president earlier signed the Nobel Prize book of previous laureates after arriving in Oslo with his wife, Michelle.
There has been some disappointment in Norway at Mr Obama's decision to stay only one day, even though Nobel ceremonies are usually held over three, and decline a traditional lunch with the king.
At a news conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, Mr Obama said he and his wife wished they could stay longer.
In the evening, Mr Obama appeared alongside Michelle on their hotel balcony and waved to a torchlight procession below. The couple were then due to go to the traditional winners' banquet.
The Nobel Prizes for chemistry, literature, medicine, physics and economics are also being presented, in the Swedish capital Stockholm.
Each laureate, including Mr Obama, receives a diploma, a medal and 10m kroner ($1.4m; £865,000).
Coinciding with the Nobel ceremony, a statue of Mr Obama as a young boy was unveiled in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, at a park, near where the president lived between 1967 and 1971.
He blatantly got the award for being the first black President of The United States - that's a big deal. Seriously, how can people complain? Segregation is within living memory for many americans. To go from black people drinking from seperate 'coloured' water-fountains, to a black man becoming Head of State within 60 years is a remarkable achievement - you have to give him credit for playing his part. He will have inspired a whole generation of young black people and given them a positive black role-model - he deserves it in my opinion.
Tell me more about this "Civil Rights" in American history. I imagine many of us over here in the would like to know. In fact, until just now I didn't there were different ethnic groups in the US, and you say there were some problems?
Good move by Obama to address the hypocrisy and to be humble about it all. He seemed just as surprised as any of us that he was even in the running for it.
Albatross wrote:He blatantly got the award for being the first black President of The United States - that's a big deal. Seriously, how can people complain? Segregation is within living memory for many americans. To go from black people drinking from seperate 'coloured' water-fountains, to a black man becoming Head of State within 60 years is a remarkable achievement - you have to give him credit for playing his part. He will have inspired a whole generation of young black people and given them a positive black role-model - he deserves it in my opinion.
Yea hopefully it inspires the UK to catch up and get a black prime minister or better yet a black Queen. Bloody brits
While being the first black president is one hell of an achievement it seems he got the peace prize for his foreign policy goals in his campaign and for not being Bush 3.0
So we are giving it to him for the color of his skin?
Well, 'we' aren't giving him anything - but in a roundabout way, yes. Surely you are aware of the fact that people see Obama as America's 'redemption'? Do you think that the fact that America can actually HAVE a black president is not worthy of celebration?
Yea hopefully it inspires the UK to catch up and get a black prime minister or better yet a black Queen.
Well, we have (and have had)MPs and Peers of all genders, ethnicities and differing sexual orientations. We also had a female Prime Minister. But we haven't had the same difficulties as far as racial politics is concerned, so it wouldn't be that big of a deal here to have a non-white PM really.
I would LOVE a black Queen.
Erm, that could be taken out of context, couldn't it?
Albatross wrote:Well, 'we' aren't giving him anything - but in a roundabout way, yes. Surely you are aware of the fact that people see Obama as America's 'redemption'? Do you think that the fact that America can actually HAVE a black president is not worthy of celebration?
I think its worth celebrating , just nothing to do with Nobel Peace Prize -_-
dogma wrote:In the context of the situation. After all, Arafat and Rabin won it because of their respective religious beliefs/ethnic heritages.
I don't think Arafat deserved it, and I am iffy about Rabin.
dogma wrote:Unless you're on the Nobel committee.
Who do think dissented?
Albatross wrote:Well, 'we' aren't giving him anything - but in a roundabout way, yes. Surely you are aware of the fact that people see Obama as America's 'redemption'? Do you think that the fact that America can actually HAVE a black president is not worthy of celebration?
Not in this regard. Are they going to give America's first female president one? Or Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Native American, etc. I think that awarding something for racial reasons like this is idiotic, and only serves to highlight the issue further. Why didn't Maggie Thatcher get one? She became PM in a country that led the suppression and restriction of women throughout the entire 18th and 19th, and even to some extent the 20th century. Or how about Barney Frank for being the first openly gay Congressmen. Surely that was a step in the right direction for the gay movement. See where your thought process takes us?
JEB_Stuart wrote:Or how about Barney Frank for being the first openly gay Congressmen. Surely that was a step in the right direction for the gay movement.
You would think so, but it was Barney Frank, so even "the gays" were kinda 'meh' about the whole situation.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't think Arafat deserved it, and I am iffy about Rabin.
Who does deserve the Peace Prize?
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Why didn't Maggie Thatcher get one? She became PM in a country that led the suppression and restriction of women throughout the entire 18th and 19th, and even to some extent the 20th century. Or how about Barney Frank for being the first openly gay Congressmen. Surely that was a step in the right direction for the gay movement. See where your thought process takes us?
She didn't get one because the Nobel Committee felt there were better candidates, or because they simply didn't like her. Both of which are legitimate reasons.
I don't really understand why this is such a big deal. The Prize(s) is(are) about a judgment call(s), pure and simple. You can say that you don't agree with the judgment, but that doesn't mean the person being given the award isn't deserving. Since, you know, the only measure of dessert is the judgment of the committee.
Are they going to give America's first female president one? Or Mexican, Japanese, Chinese, Native American, etc. I think that awarding something for racial reasons like this is idiotic, and only serves to highlight the issue further.
It's not because he is non-white - it's because he is African-American. And they were slaves. Now one is the President - that's what America is SUPPOSED to be all about. Opportunity. Obama getting himself elected could be seen as the advent of TRUE equal opportunity for Black Americans.
Why didn't Maggie Thatcher get one? She became PM in a country that led the suppression and restriction of women throughout the entire 18th and 19th, and even to some extent the 20th century.
The Falklands War, The Death of Bobby Sands (RIP), British Policy in Northern Ireland in general, Anti-Unionism...the list goes on.
Or how about Barney Frank for being the first openly gay Congressmen. Surely that was a step in the right direction for the gay movement. See where your thought process takes us?
If he had been Head of State, I would say yes, he would have deserved one. But that will never happen. Not in America, not in our lifetime.
@Dogma: Its not so much a critique of the committee as a critique of Albatross' declaration of why it should happen. But if the committee gives it out for less then worthy reasons, this I don't think being a worthy reason obviously, it diminishes the level of respect for the award. I don't care who they give it to, its their award.
It seems to me that over the last twenty years or so, public life in America has descended into a rhetoric of violence. For example, the "culture war" has been forced on us by those especially eager to fight it. Is it any wonder that abortion doctors are murdered (as they attend church services!) when the "pro-life" demagogues talk in terms of a cosmic struggle of good versus evil? Anyone hearing this will eventually ask the question "and what should be done to an evil person" or, as certain Catholic wackos have called President Obama, "an agent of death?" Rational people, for the time being at least, put the obvious answer out of their minds but there are a few deranged people who take these notions literally and end up murdering people. Again, consider the murder of George Tiller. In contrast to this wild language of hate and war, Obama offered a positive but grounded way of talking that responds to the most basic mechanism of American culture: compromise. In our era of "culture war," compromise has somehow become a dirty word that means "having no backbone" or "surrendering your principles." I think the Founding Fathers would disagree. Also, as Albatross has pointed out, the Founding Fathers themselves did not have the moral courage to deal with the problems of race in this country. That has been the special work--or burden--of the postwar generation and continues to be the work of Americans today. I don't think that any black man could have triumphed over the long standing traditions of prejudice and systems of inequity that have embedded themselves, with our tacit approval, into our way of life. I shudder to think, for example, at the thought of Jesse Jackson becoming our first back president. Rather, a black man who offered more than the color of his skin is the indispensible man of this moment. And Barak Obama has been that man since he rose to national prominence with a message of realistic optimism. He is making peace in a culture that has done its best to tear itself apart and that peace means more to the rest of the world than it is commonly comfortable admitting. I have to disagree with the President when I say that I think he deserved this award.
Albatross wrote:It's not because he is non-white - it's because he is African-American. And they were slaves. Now one is the President - that's what America is SUPPOSED to be all about. Opportunity. Obama getting himself elected could be seen as the advent of TRUE equal opportunity for Black Americans.
You do realize there were black slave owners right?
Albatross wrote:The Falklands War, The Death of Bobby Sands (RIP), British Policy in Northern Ireland in general, Anti-Unionism...the list goes on.
Manchu wrote:I have to disagree with the President when I say that I think he deserved this award.
Yeah, I'd agree.
I think we often forget what the Peace Prize is actually awarded for,
shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
Fraternity is obviously a subjective consideration, but in terms of the promotion of peace congresses Obama has certainly been active.
You do realize there were black slave owners right?
Were there many white slaves?
The Falklands War, The Death of Bobby Sands (RIP), British Policy in Northern Ireland in general, Anti-Unionism...the list goes on.
You ignored my point completely....
You asked why she didn't get an award - I think these things could have been factors. If it wasn't for these reasons, it's not inconceivable that she would have been considered.
Americans should be HAPPY that our President has received a Nobel Peace Prize. But no, some go immediately to pessimism.
President Obama overcame so much hate and discrimination and other factors to get to his position, and what does he get in return? Insults from the American public.
As an American, it's truly saddening to see that someone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong.
What happened to being open-minded? What happened to hearing out what the other person is saying? I know that many times I have changed what I have believed due to people explaining their beliefs in a well-thought out way.
But now we've resorted to propaganda and flat-out lying.
He deserves it for the simple fact that people don't ask me what I think about what Jessie or Sharpton said that day (Self-Edited angry rant). I do feel it's sad that the only thing agreed on is war :\
I didn't know I started another thread for bitching about Obama getting the prize. Here I was thinking I posted his controversial but powerful speech.
I'm glad you guys were there to show me that petty bickering about something thats already happened and that Obama himself noted in the speech was seemingly less deserved than others is more important than a review of the notion that just war can bring peace in the face of an institution that largely lauds the effort to "do nothing" at times.
Vladsimpaler wrote:As an American, it's truly saddening to see that someone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong.
Exactly. This is what our public life is becoming. As a Catholic, I am especially mortified to see bishops falling into this kind of thinking. I am speaking especially about the scandal about Patrick Kennedy. Americans need to remember that all our progress has been built on negotiation. There will always be mudslinging. But there was a time when the mudslinging was just tactical and not part of an ideological program. And at the end of the day, there was a sense that we were all Americans after all. Now it seems that some people want to disenfranchise you--or damn your immortal soul--should you disagree about a hot-button issue.
Fateweaver wrote:Dare I say it's why he was voted into President in the first place?
Yes I went there.
We know, thats where you always go. In every thread. Without supporting your opinion, or really even attempting to provide reasons for it. It's what makes you fateweaver.
So it's no shock someone from outside the US said he won the NPP for being black without providing reason but I MUST provide reason for him being voted Pres. for his skin color?
Double standards are nice, aren't they?
This is also the first time Shuma I even brought it up. I've never hinted or implied or alleged that I dislike Obama due to his skin color. If he was white or latino or Native American or a midget I would dislike him the same.
Fateweaver wrote:So it's no shock someone from outside the US said he won the NPP for being black without providing reason but I MUST provide reason for him being voted Pres. for his skin color?
Double standards are nice, aren't they?
I didn't give a value judgement, I said you don't ever support yourself. He didn't either, I know, I can read too. It's only a double standard when I somehow give a standard.
:edit:
This is also the first time Shuma I even brought it up. I've never hinted or implied or alleged that I dislike Obama due to his skin color. If he was white or latino or Native American or a midget I would dislike him the same.
Oh, was it greengit who kept saying it? If it is I apologize for baiting you like that.
Probably GG and who knows, he MIGHT have a point. It's easy for someone who voted for him to say his color wasn't an issue but unless I know that person I won't necessarily believe his color didn't have SOME iota of influence on that persons vote.
I can claim it's not race related because I have not seen a Dem I like run for office. I'm also not an extremist right winger. I have some views that are more middle of the road (I am Pro-choice which goes against even the right wing).
I think it was less to do with him being black, and more to do with his approach to international relations. He puts consensus and discussion as the first line of approach, which isn't that remarkable on the world stage but is a distinct change from his predecessor. So yeah, he got it for not being Bush.
Which I have mixed feelings about, to be honest. On the one hand, a president who isn't Bush is probably more important to world peace than half the recipients. But on the other hand, I'm not Bush so where's my Nobel prize? In fact, there's more than six billion of us who aren't Bush, so perhaps we should all get the award.
"And the winner of this year's Nobel Prize for Peace is everyone who isn't George W Bush."
While he Isn't Bush he's a brilliant public speaker, and if you'd listened to the speech for which this article is based you would see that he's a believer in the concept of unilateral intervention for the purpose of world peace. Bush never gave so clear and innocent a call to action, and no world leader has done anything similar for quite a long time.
Argue about their reasoning as you will, but he's not a particularly poor recipient. He accepted graciously, and promised to do all that was within his power to make himself worthy of the honor bestowed upon him.
It's not because he is non-white - it's because he is African-American. And they were slaves. Now one is the President - that's what America is SUPPOSED to be all about. Opportunity. Obama getting himself elected could be seen as the advent of TRUE equal opportunity for Black Americans.
I think that's a reasonable explanation for why he could conceivably win the Nobel simply for being black. It could also be used as a reason to vote for him. I think that he won the Nobel Peace Prize for being the first black President of The USA - that's not really a controversial thing to say.
I didn't say controversial, I said unsupported, and they don't give out peace prizes for "affirming the american way of life", you have to do something to get a peace prize. My best guess, and the rough reasoning they gave if I recall correctly is in his campaign, which alone helped to re energize world sentiment towards america and reaffirm many of the values shared by all civilized peoples (no torture, clarity in government, clarity in military, negotiations rather than posturing, etc). They gave it to him for his potential, not because he filled out his equal opportunity form.
Fateweaver wrote:Dare I say it's why he was voted into President in the first place?
Yes I went there.
While a number of people did vote for Obama due to his skin colour, it was likely more or less offset by the numbers that voted against him for the same. It was also a tiny factor compared to unhappiness over the previous President and the quality of Obama’s campaign compared to his opponent (both at the top level and the grassroots level).
So yeah, you could dare to say it if you wanted but few would consider it a reasonable statement, and it would only serve to reinforce our opinion of you as a poster driven by ideology and not by logic, facts or reason. It’s up to you.
I didn't say controversial, I said unsupported, and they don't give out peace prizes for "affirming the american way of life", you have to do something to get a peace prize. My best guess, and the rough reasoning they gave if I recall correctly is in his campaign, which alone helped to re energize world sentiment towards america and reaffirm many of the values shared by all civilized peoples (no torture, clarity in government, clarity in military, negotiations rather than posturing, etc). They gave it to him for his potential, not because he filled out his equal opportunity form.
Becoming the first black president of a country that has been a racist state for most of it's history is 'filling out his equal opportunities form'? Do you have to work at being crass or does it come naturally? Showing to the world that America is finally reaching the finish-line with regards to black equality will have done a hell of a lot more for international goodwill than a few empty promises. Promising 'not to torture'? You're not SUPPOSED to torture!
I also said I don't not like him based on his skin color so keep thinking of me what you will.
Being slick got Bill Clinton pretty far. JFK was a ladies man as well and that didn't hurt his Presidency.
Besides, anyone who's old enough to have voted for at least one President knows that 90% of a campaign is lies and bs and selling yourself to get votes. The Repubs are just as guilty as the Dems so again me bashing his campaign promises are not due to my dislike of him, but truth as all Presidential candidates lie and bs.
Oh yeah, I'll give up that point that Palin was a bad pick.
I think Rice would have made the better VP for McCain and would have possibly balanced out the "gotta vote for the black man for Rresident" by having a black woman for VP.
I can't prove it would have but neither can anyone prove it wouldn't have.
ecoming the first black president of a country that has been a racist state for most of it's history is 'filling out his equal opportunities form'? Do you have to work at being crass or does it come naturally? Showing to the world that America is finally reaching the finish-line with regards to black equality will have done a hell of a lot more for international goodwill than a few empty promises. Promising 'not to torture'? You're not SUPPOSED to torture!
What's worth a prize, ending a current problem (torture, the refusal to admit climate change within the largest economy on the planet) or capping off a problem that ended before I was even born (im 22).
Fateweaver wrote:I also said I don't not like him based on his skin color so keep thinking of me what you will.
Who said your decision to dislike him was based on his skin colour. You're already pointed that out . You don't like him because he holds some liberal views, we all know that. The issue is that your disagreement on policy leads you to form all kinds of silly ideas, such as the idea that a significant portion of his votes were purely due to the colour of his skin... when the actual driving points of his win (hopeless previous Republican president, skilled top level and grassroots campaign) are well known.
Besides, anyone who's old enough to have voted for at least one President knows that 90% of a campaign is lies and bs and selling yourself to get votes. The Repubs are just as guilty as the Dems so again me bashing his campaign promises are not due to my dislike of him, but truth as all Presidential candidates lie and bs.
This just in, politics is about getting people to vote for you! Catch the full story here at 11.
You know that is a good question, I will have to get back to you on that. I wouldn't doubt it, there might have been at least a few, but who knows. I will check on that. Regardless though, slavery is a dead issue. You don't see me lecturing you on Britain's many, many racial skeletons do you? I think you need to cool it on this. I have family members who went through segregation, and this is starting to get a bit personal....
Albatross wrote:You asked why she didn't get an award - I think these things could have been factors. If it wasn't for these reasons, it's not inconceivable that she would have been considered.
No I asked why she didn't get it for becoming the first female PM in the history of the UK, especially in a country that repressed women so much. I was following the guidelines that you set forth and it worked.
Vladsimpaler wrote:Americans should be HAPPY that our President has received a Nobel Peace Prize. But no, some go immediately to pessimism.
As a patriotic American I am glad that he won. Doesn't mean that I think others are more deserving. Just because I am critical of something doesn't mean I am totally pissed off over it. I have a great amount of respect for the Nobel Peace Prize, and I felt that he didn't deserve it, simple as that. Its not a critique of Barack Obama, there are a good many things I like about the man, rather it is a critique of the committee.
Vladsimpaler wrote:What happened to being open-minded? What happened to hearing out what the other person is saying? I know that many times I have changed what I have believed due to people explaining their beliefs in a well-thought out way.
There is a distinct difference between being open-minded and being weak minded. I am a very open minded person, and anyone who knows me personally will tell you that, but that doesn't mean that I change my mind easily. Many philosophers that I love(Nietzsche, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, etc.), say many well thought out ideas, brilliant proposals and the like, but I don't always agree with them. I consider myself an academic, and in my definition academia is almost invariably supported by the idea of being open minded to new possibilities and interpretations.
Vladsimpaler wrote:But now we've resorted to propaganda and flat-out lying. Are you proud of that, Jeb?
I haven't lied, nor am I resorting to propaganda. In fact, I have never lied on this forum, or any debate of any form I get in to. I may not always have the complete story, but I will always correct my mistakes. Anyone who knows my posts on the OT knows that I usually do my research for things that require it, or that I post mostly reasonable stuff, especially when it relates to history. Don't accuse me of something like lying or anything similar, I am not a fan of people who assail my integrity.
I find he whole thing stupid, the nobel is nothing but a joke now and minus points to Osama, er Obama for not being a man and refusing it. whats worse he talks of the nessesity of war while accepting a peace prize. pure crap. As far as im concerend obama has won only 1 prize here.
Hawkins wrote:I find he whole thing stupid, the nobel is nothing but a joke now and minus points to Osama, er Obama for not being a man and refusing it. whats worse he talks of the nessesity of war while accepting a peace prize. pure crap. As far as im concerend obama has won only 1 prize here.
As flameworthy as this post was I'll accept it. It's one of the ONLY ONES SO FAR THATS BEEN ON TOPIC.
Shuma, you are right. I do feel bad about derailing the thread, I really didn't mean for that to happen. I actually thought the speech that he gave today was quite good, and I was surprised at his humility TBH. I will admit though that I did find the ironic content in his speech to be...interesting. I do think though that he should have given the award to someone more deserving. Actually, what I wish the Nobel Prize would go to was a nobody. Someone who just quietly and humbly works to better humanity. What better way to acknowledge their devotion and selfless service? But that is just my 2 cents....
Hawkins wrote:I find he whole thing stupid, the nobel is nothing but a joke now and minus points to Osama, er Obama for not being a man and refusing it. whats worse he talks of the nessesity of war while accepting a peace prize. pure crap. As far as im concerend obama has won only 1 prize here.
As flameworthy as this post was I'll accept it. It's one of the ONLY ONES SO FAR THATS BEEN ON TOPIC.
if he has refused the prize, i garentee you, my response would have been 180' but after his speach im nothing but angry at the man at the momment. I always knew he was a Celebrity President i just thought he had morals as well. my bad.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Actually, what I wish the Nobel Prize would go to was a nobody. Someone who just quietly and humbly works to better humanity. What better way to acknowledge their devotion and selfless service? But that is just my 2 cents....
That might be a nice idea, but the Peace Prize was explicitly intended to be awarded for efforts in the reduction of violence between nations. That's why all the people who have received have been politically significant.
As for the speech (on page 2). It was on par with all his other oratory. I think he did a good job of illustrating the link between violence and peace, which was the primary objection to his receipt of the award.
Ahtman wrote:I actually liked both candidates and would have had a hard time picking...until the VP picks were announced. That made it considerably easier.
QFT.
I genuinelly like John McCain, he seems a genuinelly decent guy, and Obama, i didnt like so much, because he flat out made ridiculous promises that anyone with a brain and an urge to read could see he had no intention of keeping, and i just got the uneasy feeling he was too slick, too shiny, a classically brilliant politician. In short, a man who can lie like a pro.
But then they announced their VPs and i saw the Creationist slow who struggles to string a sentance together, who jokes about fruit fly research and scoffs at it when she knows nothing about it, and who swore that God provided better ballistic protection than body armor and i accompanied my missus to the voting booth to DEMAND she not vote for McCain.
If that woman EVER gets in power i am moving to the moon. And even that might not be safe.
Albatross wrote: Take the piss all you want, mate - I have a point do I not?
No you don't.
He didn't do t.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Cane wrote:black Queen.
Like this one?
At least she goddamn did something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:I'm still just shocked to learn there was slavery in America's history.
Wait, we have history? Is that what that professor kept yammering at me about? Man I am even more slow on the uptake than I thought.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
deserved than others is more important than a review of the notion that just war can bring peace in the face of an institution that largely lauds the effort to "do nothing" at times.
What you act like thats a new concept. To a leftwing treehugger mayhaps, but to the party of Roosevelt/Truman and the rest of the United States thats just assumed.
I believe Obama should have accepted the Nobel Prize. Further that he was right to defend the war in Afghanistan, since it is intended to break a despotic and vile regime of suppression and was committed to with the endorsement of the United Nations.
I do believe the choice was somewhat premature, since he has only just arrived. I consider it an olive branch to the US from the rest of the world for ending a period of aggressive isolationism and a return to centre stage for US diplomacy and adjudication in the world events. Had Obama refused the Prize, no doubt the foam-mouthed critics, for whom he can do no right (see: Fateweaver etc) would have decried him as arrogant and aloof.
With the Nobel Prize we welcome back the USA to the centre of the world political arena and look forward to progressive and enlightened policy. Whilst once again the US proves it's self a place of democracy and the dreams of a generation ago becoming reality with a black president, I believe the Nobel folks chose Obama because he has committed himself to reintroducing the US to the rest of the world. I'm glad, it was getting difficult for the UK to remain friends with the US as things stood a few years ago and most other countries had already crossed the floor.
For the record, I agree with Ahtman on the subject of candidates, I was impressed with McCain's sincerity when I heard him speak and him having REAL combat experience made him an excellent choice to replace that draft dodging gakker richkid Bush. But the bitch he chose as his running mate made him unelectable, the terrifying ineptitude of that woman and the bizarre far right and racist elements that clung to her made him an impossible choice.
Frazzled wrote: We just need the rest of the world to leave us alone.
Trading figures would suggest otherwise.
Not really. We could put up barriers and build the same crap CHina builds for us here.
We really only need Latin America, Canada, and the Caribbean. I needs my Tim Hortons, rum, tequila, and tele novellas!
Frazzled wrote: We just need the rest of the world to leave us alone.
Trading figures would suggest otherwise.
Not really. We could put up barriers and build the same crap CHina builds for us here.
We really only need Latin America, Canada, and the Caribbean. I needs my Tim Hortons, rum, tequila, and tele novellas!
..and who, pray tell, would play all the villains in your talking pictures and idiot box dramas ? Canadians ? Ha ! Although, granted, the OtS or the reanimated corpse of John Candy would work as villains in many circumstances.
Frazzled wrote: We just need the rest of the world to leave us alone.
Trading figures would suggest otherwise.
Not really. We could put up barriers and build the same crap CHina builds for us here.
We really only need Latin America, Canada, and the Caribbean. I needs my Tim Hortons, rum, tequila, and tele novellas!
..and who, pray tell, would play all the villains in your talking pictures and idiot box dramas ? Canadians ? Ha ! Although, granted, the OtS or the reanimated corpse of John Candy would work as villains in many circumstances.
True that. Certain essential imports are needed. Ducati motorcycles as well.
Do you guys get the David Attenborough stuff ? Now he is English, I like this story..
There were also the many logistical nightmares of travelling to remote places. On one occasion, for instance, Attenborough had to call upon all his considerable charm when a team of native porters in Borneo refused to go beyond their tribal boundary – they were worried about a tribe of cannibals in the next valley.
No sooner was Attenborough gently remonstrating with them than a band of about 70 men brandishing fearsome-looking weapons came charging out of nowhere. Any normal mortal would have panicked, but Attenborough strode purposefully towards the advancing horde with his right hand outstretched while shouting a cheery "Good afternoon!" The English charm paid off, and the "cannibals" agreed to accompany him and his camera crew deeper into their territory.
Hawkins wrote:I find he whole thing stupid, the nobel is nothing but a joke now and minus points to Osama, er Obama for not being a man and refusing it. whats worse he talks of the nessesity of war while accepting a peace prize. pure crap. As far as im concerend obama has won only 1 prize here.
And what would refusing it have accomplished? Don't get me wrong, I don't think the guy deserved it at all. He was handed the prize for not being Bush, apparently also because he's black, and because he said a few nice things while campaigning about what he might do in the future. However what would have been accomplished by not accepting it?
Talking about the necessity of war while accepting the peace prize is brilliant. It's a stroke for common sense. Read what he said because he gave two perfect examples, Hitler and Al-Queda. Neither of them would have just sat down and talked things out, war was/is necessary to preserve the peace. Whether you like it or not its simply a fact that peace will never last without men with guns who are intent on protecting it. Anyone with more than a handful of firing neurons should know this. It doesn't mean violence is the first answer, only that it can never be removed from the list of possible responses or else peace will evaporate as people who are perfectly willing to be violent run all over the pacifists of the world.
I don't care for him but this is a case where I was pretty damn proud of him. He didn't pull his punches and blow sunshine up the world's collective ass about love, harmony, and the power of positive thinking. He talked about reality and Lord knows we need a good hard dose of it in this age.
This:
There has been some disappointment in Norway at Mr Obama's decision to stay only one day, even though Nobel ceremonies are usually held over three, and decline a traditional lunch with the king.
Actually kinda bugs me. Not so much cutting the stay short. He is the president of a country and spending three days accepting an award is ridiculous for a man in his position. Snubbing the king though? That's just bad form.
There has been some disappointment in Norway at Mr Obama's decision to stay only one day, even though Nobel ceremonies are usually held over three, and decline a traditional lunch with the king.
Actually kinda bugs me. Not so much cutting the stay short. He is the president of a country and spending three days accepting an award is ridiculous for a man in his position. Snubbing the king though? That's just bad form.
I would guess he wants the whole thing over asap so that the media moves on and his detractors aren't still crowing about him 'lording it up with kings' over his 'undeserved' nobel prize for longer than necessary.
And I expect he wants to get back to administration asap. Some eggshell breaking with the Norwegians may have to be suffered to avoid providing the pitchfork wielders with less 'ammo' for their hatefests.
Hawkins wrote:I find he whole thing stupid, the nobel is nothing but a joke now and minus points to Osama, er Obama for not being a man and refusing it. whats worse he talks of the nessesity of war while accepting a peace prize. pure crap. As far as im concerend obama has won only 1 prize here.
And what would refusing it have accomplished? Don't get me wrong, I don't think the guy deserved it at all. He was handed the prize for not being Bush, apparently also because he's black, and because he said a few nice things while campaigning about what he might do in the future. However what would have been accomplished by not accepting it?
Talking about the necessity of war while accepting the peace prize is brilliant. It's a stroke for common sense. Read what he said because he gave two perfect examples, Hitler and Al-Queda. Neither of them would have just sat down and talked things out, war was/is necessary to preserve the peace. Whether you like it or not its simply a fact that peace will never last without men with guns who are intent on protecting it. Anyone with more than a handful of firing neurons should know this. It doesn't mean violence is the first answer, only that it can never be removed from the list of possible responses or else peace will evaporate as people who are perfectly willing to be violent run all over the pacifists of the world.
I don't care for him but this is a case where I was pretty damn proud of him. He didn't pull his punches and blow sunshine up the world's collective ass about love, harmony, and the power of positive thinking. He talked about reality and Lord knows we need a good hard dose of it in this age.
This:
There has been some disappointment in Norway at Mr Obama's decision to stay only one day, even though Nobel ceremonies are usually held over three, and decline a traditional lunch with the king.
Actually kinda bugs me. Not so much cutting the stay short. He is the president of a country and spending three days accepting an award is ridiculous for a man in his position. Snubbing the king though? That's just bad form.
I disagree. the US should snub all "royalty" as a matter of policy. Except the UK queen, just because she's kinda cool.
Da Boss wrote:Statements like that make you look like a narrow minded prick, Frazzled.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I believe he was joking DaBoss...
Both of those can in fact be accurate at the same time.
Wait, are you saying the UK queen isn't kinda of cool? Wow I knew the Irish could be anti British, but thats kinda of harsh...
I like the current Queen, i think like or loathe the Royals, everyone can agree that she is a pleasant, dignified old lady.
Her Gibbering half-witted jug eared son is another matter altogether though.. im sure thats why she is still on the throne, cos she KNOWS that he is a fething idiot. :S
Frazz whats wrong with you? first you mention ducatti, and then further blasphmy with HD (though it is made on american soil). have you no pride son? there is only one motorcycle that need concern you. Indian.
now back on topic: Tyyr: I'll answer only one of your questions i find the other things youve said to be totally patriotic. thank gawd im not.
Q:And what would refusing it have accomplished? well for one, had he declined the peace prize would have at least maintained some dignaty rather than the joke it is now. the prize now for many has no value. it was issued before ol Barak had done a darn thing. he sure as hell didnt earn it, attempted peace? and then giving the thumbs up to the nessasessity of war in his acceptance? ok granted hes right, but a speach like that while reciveing a peace award? are you joking?
It would also show that hes smart enough to see that he himself had done nothing to deserve it, and thus acted like a man and refused, as it stands i wonder if the Prez buys into his own hype now..
Next years winner might as well be Lisa Nowak for attepmted murder, it makes as much sense and what the hell there both have 2 things needed apperently to win a prize. 1. atteped (to do something) 2. both are celebrities
mattyrm wrote: i saw the Creationist slow who struggles to string a sentance together,
This is the exact kind of rhetoric that will start a Creationist vs Evolutionist battle. You have done this quite a few times since you have been posting on the OT.
I mean how would you like it if inserted something like, "Oh yeah and you know that slowed evolutionist that said this or that" . That kind of flame baiting language should be avoided.
Hawkins wrote:Q:And what would refusing it have accomplished?
well for one, had he declined the peace prize would have at least maintained some dignaty rather than the joke it is now. the prize now for many has no value. it was issued before ol Barak had done a darn thing. he sure as hell didnt earn it, attempted peace?
Take a look at the people the prize has been given too then come back and convince me it wasn't already a joke long before Barrak was awarded it.
and then giving the thumbs up to the nessasessity of war in his acceptance? ok granted hes right, but a speach like that while reciveing a peace award? are you joking?
Of course not. You just admitted it, he's right. You cannot talk about peace without talking about military might to back it up. On top of that everyone is well aware of the surreal nature of giving the peace prize to a man commanding two wars right now. He had to address it, namely how war can serve the cause of peace. If he'd ignored that would have only compounded just how ridiculous the whole situation is. Talking about peace without acknowledging the need for violence at times is just delusional.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I believe Obama should have accepted the Nobel Prize. Further that he was right to defend the war in Afghanistan, since it is intended to break a despotic and vile regime of suppression and was committed to with the endorsement of the United Nations.
I do believe the choice was somewhat premature, since he has only just arrived. I consider it an olive branch to the US from the rest of the world for ending a period of aggressive isolationism and a return to centre stage for US diplomacy and adjudication in the world events. Had Obama refused the Prize, no doubt the foam-mouthed critics, for whom he can do no right (see: Fateweaver etc) would have decried him as arrogant and aloof.
With the Nobel Prize we welcome back the USA to the centre of the world political arena and look forward to progressive and enlightened policy. Whilst once again the US proves it's self a place of democracy and the dreams of a generation ago becoming reality with a black president, I believe the Nobel folks chose Obama because he has committed himself to reintroducing the US to the rest of the world. I'm glad, it was getting difficult for the UK to remain friends with the US as things stood a few years ago and most other countries had already crossed the floor.
For the record, I agree with Ahtman on the subject of candidates, I was impressed with McCain's sincerity when I heard him speak and him having REAL combat experience made him an excellent choice to replace that draft dodging gakker richkid Bush. But the bitch he chose as his running mate made him unelectable, the terrifying ineptitude of that woman and the bizarre far right and racist elements that clung to her made him an impossible choice.
This whole post goes to show what I had always thought. Giving the NPP to Obama was simply a way for the committee to try and affect the politics of the U.S. It had nothing to do with peace, but was a political statement.
And I disagee that he was damned if he did and damned if didn't accept the prize. I for one would have appluaded him, if he declined it.
GG
Frazzled wrote:
Again, considering he won the award aprox. 17 minutes after being sworn in, yea she did more.
I had no idea you were such a fan of Beauty Shop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
This whole post goes to show what I had always thought. Giving the NPP to Obama was simply a way for the committee to try and affect the politics of the U.S. It had nothing to do with peace, but was a political statement.
That's all its ever been.
There seem to be some very deep seated misconceptions with respect to the nature of the Peace Prize.
generalgrog wrote:
Good point, I grew up thinking it actually meant something. Now it's just the equivalent to a brownie point, with 1 million dollars atached to it.
GG
It stills means something. Though the extent to which you value that meaning is tied directly to the extent that you value the opinion of 5 men appointed by the Norwegian parliament. In that sense its exactly like any other award that isn't directly attached to a contest.
dogma wrote:
Though the extent to which you value that meaning is tied directly to the extent that you value the opinion of 5 men appointed by the Norwegian parliament.
dogma wrote:
Though the extent to which you value that meaning is tied directly to the extent that you value the opinion of 5 men appointed by the Norwegian parliament.
I.E. it means nothing.
GG
That's not a contradiction. Receipt of the Peace Prize means that 5 men appointed by the Norwegian parliament believe that you deserve it more than any other candidate they considered. If you value that sort of thing, then the meaning will matter to you. If you don't value it, then it won't, but the meaning is not eliminated because you do not value it.
Anyway, I'd be interested to hear all about these awards which possess some kind of objective meaning.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I believe Obama should have accepted the Nobel Prize. Further that he was right to defend the war in Afghanistan, since it is intended to break a despotic and vile regime of suppression and was committed to with the endorsement of the United Nations.
I do believe the choice was somewhat premature, since he has only just arrived. I consider it an olive branch to the US from the rest of the world for ending a period of aggressive isolationism and a return to centre stage for US diplomacy and adjudication in the world events. Had Obama refused the Prize, no doubt the foam-mouthed critics, for whom he can do no right (see: Fateweaver etc) would have decried him as arrogant and aloof.
With the Nobel Prize we welcome back the USA to the centre of the world political arena and look forward to progressive and enlightened policy. Whilst once again the US proves it's self a place of democracy and the dreams of a generation ago becoming reality with a black president, I believe the Nobel folks chose Obama because he has committed himself to reintroducing the US to the rest of the world. I'm glad, it was getting difficult for the UK to remain friends with the US as things stood a few years ago and most other countries had already crossed the floor.
For the record, I agree with Ahtman on the subject of candidates, I was impressed with McCain's sincerity when I heard him speak and him having REAL combat experience made him an excellent choice to replace that draft dodging gakker richkid Bush. But the bitch he chose as his running mate made him unelectable, the terrifying ineptitude of that woman and the bizarre far right and racist elements that clung to her made him an impossible choice.
Nice blanket attack MGS but FYI had he turned it down I would have applauded him. He didn't deserve it in the first place IMO so why the hell would I bitch about him not accepting it?
But according to you MGS I hate everything about Obama, which I don't, I just hate most things.
Tyyr wrote:
Of course not. You just admitted it, he's right. You cannot talk about peace without talking about military might to back it up. On top of that everyone is well aware of the surreal nature of giving the peace prize to a man commanding two wars right now. He had to address it, namely how war can serve the cause of peace. If he'd ignored that would have only compounded just how ridiculous the whole situation is. Talking about peace without acknowledging the need for violence at times is just delusional.
[pacifist]
Martin Luther King Jr. was very non-violent. He believed that people's hatred could be defeated by the capacity for people to suffer and love their enemies, and denounced the U.S. as the greatest perveyor of violence in the World. He got a national holiday.
Ghandi was a clever guy with crazy ideas about non-violence, and he lead India to independence from the British. He believed that Hitler could be defeated non-violently.
Leo Tolstoy (who I will admit seemed to fly from utter brilliance to madness) advocated complete and utter non-resistance (even for police).
Disagree with them if you will, but I don't think that it is fair call every advocate of complete non-violence delusional, insane or mentally deficient.
On topic: I mentioned this in another thread but not only is Obama a wartime president, he is the Commander-In-Chief of the largest military in the world that accounts for about half of the world's total military spending.
As for the righteousness of a 'just war' every war is just in the eyes of those who desire it for whatever reason.
[/pacifist]
in imitation of Obama:
'let me make one thing perfectly clear *pause*'
I dont dislike (hate) Obama either, im mad at his choise of accepting the boobie prize. period.
i look at him much like i do any celebrity president, (like JFK) is very charismatic, and i do hope that he is able to accomplish his goals concerning 'A New World Order' concerning security for the world and finding a common launguage where muslims and the world can live in harmony. My beef is that he hasnt done a dang thing to earn the prize (yet) and he was given the Nobel for statements and not for accomplishments. we all are leary of political promises as so often they are simpley words that dont mean a thing. if Obama can produce the goods, fine, but in accepting a Nobel without having actually done anything, as smart as he is, just accomplishes 2 things in my mind. one that he understands that he hasnt earned a thing and accepted anyway (dont give the the malarky that he sees it as a challange) which makes him hypicritacal.
and 2 he really isnt the Baby jesus reborn that alot of americans seem to think he is.
We will see, if he earns the prize, but even the commity has owned up and said 'we hope obama lives up to out exspectations' so the nobel IMO has become a useless 1 mil giveaway, with only the cash being important, and obama looses points for promoting the nessity of war at a speach for a peace prize (witch IMO is not the place to hold such a talk). sure you can praise that its a speach that shows that hes not a bull gaker, but it has no place in that inviroment, and should have been made in a apropriate invironment away from the prize. I DONT CARE if its true, the only reason everyone is not up in arms about it is that its obama that made the speach, if bush had, Everyone would have cried foul. so because hes popular and charismatic he gets away from it? wow that alter of public opinion must also exist in the bubble of unreality. (no big surprise there.)
@ Hawkins: Assuming that the committee responsible is obligated to hand out a peace prize annually then they had to pick someone. I recall reading that a representative said that this year was one where no major conflicts had been solved peacefully so Obama was selected as the next best thing: an individual likely to foster peace.
I think someone else pointed out that he could hardly deny the award. It would be an insult. I think he did the best thing by taking the award and publicly acknowledging that he is not the worthiest of recipients.
Hawkins wrote:
he really isnt the Baby jesus reborn that alot of americans seem to think he is.
There are Americans who think that he is the Antichrist or a Muslim. It goes both ways.
Also, I hate to be a grammar Nazi but spellcheck is your friend.
Da Boss wrote:Statements like that make you look like a narrow minded prick, Frazzled.
Do not concur. The United States should not recognize the authority of kings. The fundamental concept of American law is the idea that all men are created equal. Monarchies are so far misaligned with this rationale that any association with them taints the purity of the movement. BHO bows to sultans and kneels before the font of public opinion. He has never suffered for his country or his beliefs. His competitor had five planes and most of an aircraft carrier destroyed underneath of him. He was held for years as a POW being tortured almost daily. He refused to break faith with his comrades and accept early release. And he did all of this because he believed that that the freedoms Americans enjoy were the unalienable right of every human. He fought and nearly died to secure the rights for people he did not even know- whom he had no kinship with. And Europe as a whole mocked him. The same parliament that decorates BHO for successfully taking advantage of his minority status vilified a man who rejected his own aristocratic background to fight for what he believed in, a fight that nearly killed him a half dozen times. Americans should be amused that such a body thinks their judgment is valued, or even considered.
Da Boss wrote:Statements like that make you look like a narrow minded prick, Frazzled.
Do not concur. The United States should not recognize the authority of kings. The fundamental concept of American law is the idea that all men are created equal. Monarchies are so far misaligned with this rationale that any association with them taints the purity of the movement. BHO bows to sultans and kneels before the font of public opinion. He has never suffered for his country or his beliefs. His competitor had five planes and most of an aircraft carrier destroyed underneath of him. He was held for years as a POW being tortured almost daily. He refused to break faith with his comrades and accept early release. And he did all of this because he believed that that the freedoms Americans enjoy were the unalienable right of every human. He fought and nearly died to secure the rights for people he did not even know- whom he had no kinship with. And Europe as a whole mocked him. The same parliament that decorates BHO for successfully taking advantage of his minority status vilified a man who rejected his own aristocratic background to fight for what he believed in, a fight that nearly killed him a half dozen times. Americans should be amused that such a body thinks their judgment is valued, or even considered.
This is frankly bizarre. Just when did 'Europe as a whole' mock McCain? I for one have a great deal of respect for him (other than his endorsement of the 'freedom of the internet Bill' fiasco, which I hope is just down to him being poorly advised). As for Obama 'taking advantage of his minority status'... erm what? So he's playing the race card? Perhaps he should, given the number of his opponent's supporters who chose to play it at their gatherings, especially towards the end of the campaign when clearly racist and hatemongering banners and rally calls were issued at the rallies (most especially the Palin ones mind you) and were not immediately decried by the representatives stood there. McCain committed political suicide with his choice of running mate, end of.
As to the US recognising the constitutional heads of state of other countries, all depends now doesn't it, if the US holds respect for those nations and populations the monarch represents. I for one would be pissed off if the president of the US chose to snub the Queen of the United Kingdom, especially as we continue to maintain active armed forces the world over in unilateral actions with the US. It would speak definitive volumes about the administration of the US if it's leader did not acknowledge our sovereign.
Again, welcome to the world stage Mr President, what a welcome breath of fresh air you are and God bless the United States, our ally in the defence of democracy, freedom, education and prosperity for the citizens of the world.
Silverthorne wrote:Do not concur. The United States should not recognize the authority of kings. The fundamental concept of American law is the idea that all men are created equal.
Yes, but the Queen isn't part of American law, she's part of UK law and they seem pretty happy with her. In Australia it's a cornerstone of our system that the executive is formed out of the legislative, to enact their will. Despite having a fundamentally different system to your own, our dignitaries still recognise the President of your country.
Monarchies are so far misaligned with this rationale that any association with them taints the purity of the movement. BHO bows to sultans and kneels before the font of public opinion. He has never suffered for his country or his beliefs. His competitor had five planes and most of an aircraft carrier destroyed underneath of him. He was held for years as a POW being tortured almost daily. He refused to break faith with his comrades and accept early release. And he did all of this because he believed that that the freedoms Americans enjoy were the unalienable right of every human. He fought and nearly died to secure the rights for people he did not even know- whom he had no kinship with. And Europe as a whole mocked him. The same parliament that decorates BHO for successfully taking advantage of his minority status vilified a man who rejected his own aristocratic background to fight for what he believed in, a fight that nearly killed him a half dozen times. Americans should be amused that such a body thinks their judgment is valued, or even considered.
The idea that man who served in the military is somehow more entitled to the Presidency is a really stupid, dangerous idea.
Of course it is! Good thing I didn't say anything like that. I'm noting how one person was as close to America has to aristocracy- you kind of have to be in the military to understand what a big deal the McCain family is- and refused to exploit that to improve his situation. Especially impressive considering his situation was solitary confinement in a cell sized so you could neither sit or stand. That to me is a far more American ideal than Mr. Obama, who did nothing but exploit his background for personal gain- first by making connections in Black Radicalism to assure choice jobs and education, and then by exploiting unjustified white guilt during the campaign.
Also, I was under the impression that Australia was hardly effected by the Queen at all. I understand that the Queen and the Governor General are both figureheads at the top of the Government, but when I lived in your country, I never got the impression that they wielded any significant political power. Obviously nations that have a figurehead Monarch for tradition's sake are not odious to the United States. If the people of some nation have chosen to institute a policy whereby they democratically limit the power of their monarch, that isn't really a true Monarchy is it? And therefore there is no problem.
The idea that anyone who opposes The Chosen One is a racist has been battered down the collective throats of America for way too long. Throughout the entire Tea Party movement, which in no way concerned with the fact that our Chief Executive is only half white, the immediate response of the MSM was to paint the protestors has violent, unhinged racist. Remember that famous picture they ran of a man holding a sign w/ a M4 carbine? And then it turned out that the picture had been cropped so that you couldn't see the man was black? The audacity of the media's efforts to portray anyone who opposed the President as racist was staggering. Especially considering how every single violent incident at these protests was started by liberals, and ended up with a conservative being hurt. The most famous of course being when A group of black men beat a single conservative black man for daring to question the anointed one. Of course, that was swept under the rug, since it didn't match the administration or the media's narrative. Gross.
MGS- I should be more specific here, I'm sorry. I continually read things ripping open McCain in Der Speigel and Le Monde Diplomatique. I don't really read other continental journals since I barely have enough time to keep fully informed w/ US information, much less European. Additionally, the American media greatly played up European hatred for McCain, as it supported the candidate they had chosen to get elected.
Silverthorne, I was not aware of any specific bias against McCain in the UK, it may be that certain of the continental media went against him in a big way, but then Bush had fallen out with those nations, most especially the French, so they would have backed anyone from the Democrats who was seen to not be GWB's 'inheritor'.
And I'll say it again for posterity, Palin was the factor dragging down opinion of McCain for us in the UK, every time she opened her mouth more offensive crap gushed out. Whether we like our politicians honest or smooth or whatever, we expect them to be erudite.
Just to clarify, my '/vomit' was directed at this nonsense:
Do not concur. The United States should not recognize the authority of kings. The fundamental concept of American law is the idea that all men are created equal. Monarchies are so far misaligned with this rationale that any association with them taints the purity of the movement. BHO bows to sultans and kneels before the font of public opinion. He has never suffered for his country or his beliefs. His competitor had five planes and most of an aircraft carrier destroyed underneath of him. He was held for years as a POW being tortured almost daily. He refused to break faith with his comrades and accept early release. And he did all of this because he believed that that the freedoms Americans enjoy were the unalienable right of every human. He fought and nearly died to secure the rights for people he did not even know- whom he had no kinship with. And Europe as a whole mocked him. The same parliament that decorates BHO for successfully taking advantage of his minority status vilified a man who rejected his own aristocratic background to fight for what he believed in, a fight that nearly killed him a half dozen times. Americans should be amused that such a body thinks their judgment is valued, or even considered.
Pathetic. So McCain being a veteran makes him a more suitable candidate for the presidency? Vietnam was not about 'freedom' - it was about American Imperialism. It doesn't diminish the efforts of McCain and people like him, but don't pretend the war was about 'freedom'. The word has been hijacked by the American right-wing - it is meaningless now. See 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' and 'Freedom Liquor' for more details.
your gonna have to be more specific. theres more than one target here ya know.....
I've got enough vomit for more than one poster here, don't worry, you'll get some too.
Vietnam was not about 'freedom' - it was about American Imperialism.
I think you need to read up on what the word imperialism means, the war wasn't about spreading freedom, and spreading democracy may have been a happy benefit, but it wasn't the focus. Despite those two things it was not about American imperialism. It was at best, an attempt at avoiding the creation of a hegemonic communist alliance, but to be imperialistic about a war you actually have to gain some sort of benefit beyond proactive national security.
Yeah i have to disagree, the UK were not against McCain, we were against Palin!
I think personally that McCain is a great man, im a military man myself and i have a great respect for him, especially after i read about how he did not take an early release from his POW status as the VC would not release the rest of the guys imprisoned with him. I genuinelly like, respect and admire the man, even though i dont agree with all of his political stances.
But Palin?! The woman was an absolute fething disgrace. I am truly stunned they were stupid enough to make her his VP.
Palin is disgusting. I can't believe the Republicans have rallied around her banner. I mean, as a state governor, she is an interesting sort of phenomenon, but I'd prefer that we left her out in a state with a smaller population than Austin, Texas. I have no idea why McCain picked her, it was such a daft move. I feel like Fred Thompson would have been a better choice. I have met Guliani and he's an idiot. At our commissioning (about 400 officers) he said "America's Military can do anything!" We sort of looked around thinking "This guy doesn't watch much of the news, I'm guessing".
MGS- these pale in comparion to the very real role Black Nationalism has in the Obama administration. Holder dismissed a case where the Black Panthers patrolled a polling sight w/ nightsticks, asking people their vote. Obama's campaign was started by a Weatherman convicted of a string a bombings targeted against white officers. The entire Van Jones and Rev. Wright debacles. To compare these to a few hicks in the sticks and you get to see the differences in scale here.
I'm sorry, but none of that business about Obama, Black Nationalism, the Panthers, or Ayers sounds credible at all. The latter at least I know is discredited junk. The rest sounds no more plausible.
Could you provide some documentation? Maybe some links or videos?
Nowadays Ayers is a respected educator who won the Chicago Citizen of the Year Award in 1997 for his work with the Annenberg Challenge Project. And Obama's barely associated with him. They're certainly not friends or anything.
Wright is a bit of a nutjub. I'm not a fan, and Obama should have walked away from him earlier. That said, virtually anyone associated with the Republican party has equally big religious nutjobs associated with them.
Silverthorne wrote:I have no idea why McCain picked her, it was such a daft move.
Originally McCain wanted to go with the Independent Joe Lieberman as his VP pick, but switched to the then unknown Sarah Palin on the advice of Carl Rove after Hillary Clinton was defeated in the primaries. And initially she did take the entire election by storm, unfortunately for the Republicans as time dragged on it became woefully apparent she was in way over her head. (and is not considered the only VP candidate to have actually hurt a presidential campaign)
As for the rest of your drivel about black nationalism...some sources please?
------------
So fateweaver your best source is called 'Left Exposed' and its previous 5 videos are:
-The West coast protests Obamacare
-Get the Race Card: A free pass on anything
-Box Office Poison: Hollywood hates America
-Schoolhouse Barack: Sonja's mom teaches prez to cut down on 'Me Time'
-Rogue Warriors: Sarah Palin's power is with the people
I think Rice would have been a good move. Would have leveled the "race" playing field and she was a lot more popular than Palin and let's face it, the Presidential race is just a popularity contest.
your gonna have to be more specific. theres more than one target here ya know.....
I've got enough vomit for more than one poster here, don't worry, you'll get some too.
Vietnam was not about 'freedom' - it was about American Imperialism.
I think you need to read up on what the word imperialism means, the war wasn't about spreading freedom, and spreading democracy may have been a happy benefit, but it wasn't the focus. Despite those two things it was not about American imperialism. It was at best, an attempt at avoiding the creation of a hegemonic communist alliance, but to be imperialistic about a war you actually have to gain some sort of benefit beyond proactive national security.
Split hairs all you like, but projecting military power in south-east asia in order to safeguard a pro-american government smacks of imperialism to me. Since when has 'pro-active national security' not been a priority for the USA? You say I need to read up on the meaning of the word 'imperialism'? I would say you need to read up on American history.
If you wanna take this up via PM Shuma, fair enough - but we have drifted off-topic a bit here!
Fateweaver wrote:I think Rice would have been a good move. Would have leveled the "race" playing field and she was a lot more popular than Palin and let's face it, the Presidential race is just a popularity contest.
All elections are popularity contests. Popularity is important, no matter what your high school counselor told you.
Also, Condi Rice would never have carried the Republican ticket. She's barely a Republican in the area which she is considered an expert (foreign policy). That should tell you something about their position on, well, anything.
Split hairs all you like, but projecting military power in south-east asia in order to safeguard a pro-american government smacks of imperialism to me.
I know, thats why I said you need to bust out that dictionary and read up on what imperialism means.
–noun 1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. 2. advocacy of imperial interests. 3. an imperial system of government. 4. imperial government. 5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.
Considering how little control we flex over vietnam in modern (and really even post war) times if it was an attempt at flexing imperial control we failed pretty badly. By that broad of a sense though virtually any form of international action, either military, diplomatic, or economic, is imperialism. If you want to accept such a broad definition then I can't really stop you, and the primary meaning of the word is fairly open, but then, much like the term "terrorist" it only has meaning insofar as it has a meaning. Once you rob it of one it simply becomes a buzzword of the european anti war left (as it has been for quite some time).
It was an imperialistic war in the same sense that Obamas healthcare package is socialist. That being in a dogmatic and hyperbolic sense only.
If you wanna take this up via PM Shuma, fair enough - but we have drifted off-topic a bit here!
Since this is my topic and none of you have been on topic from the start anyway I'm happy to have it here. I don't maintain the energy for debates in PM, without an audience I just don't care as you saw last time.
MGS- these pale in comparion to the very real role Black Nationalism has in the Obama administration. Holder dismissed a case where the Black Panthers patrolled a polling sight w/ nightsticks, asking people their vote. Obama's campaign was started by a Weatherman convicted of a string a bombings targeted against white officers. The entire Van Jones and Rev. Wright debacles. To compare these to a few hicks in the sticks and you get to see the differences in scale here.
Do you want to bring up Swiftboat and that couple the Clintons killed too? Or would you like to actually stop discrediting any opinion that you put fourth with ludicrous and discredited hyperconservative election campaign mudsling-talkingpoints. You gonna say Obama is a muslim next? You'd have the hat trick.
ShumaGorath wrote:
It was an imperialistic war in the same sense that Obamas healthcare package is socialist. That being in a dogmatic and hyperbolic sense only.
I don't know that it was dogmatic, or hyperbolic. Vietnam was imperialistic (Containment was used to justify it), and Obama's healthcare package is socialist. The question we must ask ourselves does not relate to the nature of such things, but whether or not they're good or bad. Of course, people who seek moral clarity will never be able to answer.
Shuma wrote:Since this is my topic and none of you have been on topic from the start anyway I'm happy to have it here. I don't maintain the energy for debates in PM, without an audience I just don't care as you saw last time.
Oh, I just thought you lost momentum because you had no position other than 'Britiain is just like 'V for Vendetta'' - and here's me thinking you'd realised you were being a bit hysterical! Thank heavens! If you ever did THAT, your posts wouldn't be anywhere near as amusing.
Shuma wrote:
Considering how little control we flex over vietnam in modern (and really even post war) times if it was an attempt at flexing imperial control we failed pretty badly. By that broad of a sense though virtually any form of international action, either military, diplomatic, or economic, is imperialism. If you want to accept such a broad definition then I can't really stop you, and the primary meaning of the word is fairly open, but then, much like the term "terrorist" it only has meaning insofar as it has a meaning. Once you rob it of one it simply becomes a buzzword of the european anti war left (as it has been for quite some time).
It was an imperialistic war in the same sense that Obamas healthcare package is socialist. That being in a dogmatic and hyperbolic sense only.
Ideological imperialism is still imperialism - calling it 'spreading american values' or 'protecting against communist hegemony' doesn't change that.
see:
Man, I wish I had a metallic skeleton. I already have the 'travelling through time' thing nailed though, Dogma. I don't wanna give too much away, so I'll just say 'look both ways when crossing the road, mate' and 'beware cycle-couriers'....
Oh, I just thought you lost momentum because you had no position other than 'Britiain is just like 'V for Vendetta'' - and here's me thinking you'd realised you were being a bit hysterical! Thank heavens! If you ever did THAT, your posts wouldn't be anywhere near as amusing.
Hardly. You said you didn't mind it being a surveillance state, and wanted me to tell you about your own lolicon laws when I mentioned that you had draconian social laws. I didn't have the sheer force of will required to teach you about your own country, as you so willingly thought you could do for me (considering I had conversed about the patriot act with you previously it's stunning you felt the need to mention that it exists as if I didn't know).
When you don't care that it's a governmental surveillance state (one of the lynchpins of both the comic and movie) and when you somehow wanted me to inform you of the very same laws I had mentioned in the thread that spawned the PM conversation I begin to get the feeling that you're stunning levels of cognitive dissonance are coming to the fore and that it's a rabbit hole that I don't want to walk down when dogma or sebster can't make snide comments and take the reigns away from me when I'm tired (not that they would, and the entire point of the conversation was basically to character assassinate england because I think its fun).
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
I like the semantics game, there can be no winner because the english language is a piece of crap and nothing is universally defined.
im⋅pe⋅ri⋅al1 [im-peer-ee-uhl] Show IPA Use imperial in a Sentence –adjective 1. of, like, or pertaining to an empire. 2. of, like, or pertaining to an emperor or empress. 3. characterizing the rule or authority of a sovereign state over its dependencies. 4. of the nature or rank of an emperor or supreme ruler.
All hail Emperor Obama and the new colonies of vietnam and Iraq.
ShumaGorath wrote:Hardly. You said you didn't mind it being a surveillance state, and wanted me to tell you about your own lolicon laws when I mentioned that you had draconian social laws.
Its important to note that a lot of people lived in the England presented in V for Vendetta without any problem at all. It took a crazy, anarchist extremist to rouse the populace from comfort.
As always, things look worse from the bottom...or the nearly-burned-alive-former-government-experiment zone.
I want one, but thats 250$ I can't afford right now. I'm happy with my 360 at the moment anyway.
Its important to note that a lot of people lived in the England presented in V for Vendetta without any problem at all. It took a crazy, anarchist extremist to rouse the populace from comfort.
As always, things look worse from the bottom...or the nearly-burned-alive-former-government-experiment zone
Of course, to mock and deride with some level of thin factual basis is to polarize the opposition and either create cognitive dissonance (which can be exploited or pointed out) or subdue and convert. England isn't the totalitarian state that builds supersoldiers and uses genetic weapons on it's own population as presented in the movie. However in mocking it as such it's more general similarities (apathy and working class racism in the populace, overt surveillance and governmental puppeteering of the labor party in the government) can be brought to the fore where it previously would have sat in the background.
I could very easily use the same logic and for the most part the same arguments against the U.S., but since the topic and comment that birthed the conversation was albatrosses national persecution complex I thought it right to continue the comparison I had made in threads previous (he was actually talking about me in the thread, though I don't believe he realized it, since usually I argue from a leftist position in national policy politics).
dogma wrote:Which is tacit to manipulation of the populace. Stop looking at that abyss.
Remember where I said earlier that I'm a transhumanist that doesn't think populism or democracy really works any more? If I have to manipulate people into being smarter then I'll do it. I'm not corrupt, I know that I do it for a good cause.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Remember where I said earlier that I'm a transhumanist that doesn't think populism or democracy really works any more? If I have to manipulate people into being smarter then I'll do it. I'm not corrupt, I know that I do it for a good cause.
Then why are you criticizing others for being manipulative? It doesn't seem wise to draw the mind to an idea which you are utilizing. It just makes it that much easier to see through the ruse.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Remember where I said earlier that I'm a transhumanist that doesn't think populism or democracy really works any more? If I have to manipulate people into being smarter then I'll do it. I'm not corrupt, I know that I do it for a good cause.
Then why are you criticizing others for being manipulative? It doesn't seem wise to draw the mind to an idea which you are utilizing. It just makes it that much easier to see through the ruse.
The real question is why am I admitting to it, since I'm not being manipulative (merely caustic and trollish) until I admit to what I'm doing. The answer to that probably lies even deeper in the rabbit hole of manipulation, or I'm just being flippant and arrogant.
As for Bill Ayers, his conviction for planning to murder American officers and their wives at Fort Dix is a matter of the public record, and not open for debate. A respected educator who wanted to murder the wives of soldiers. Right. Obama's campaign for president started during a conversation with Ayers when they worked together at the Woods Foundation, a connection that Obama admits in his books. This is what got him his community organizing connections that launched his career. If you need a source for that, I hope the DOJ conviction records, and Obamas own book will cover your need.
And how is this related to Swiftboating? And how is swiftboating not legit? I think if every officer you served alongside indicts you for being a liar and a coward, and the Navy doctor who signed your forms comes forward says that he though the Purple Heart application was a joke, than it is a legitimate point. I haven't ever heard of the Clintons killing anyone, just that Laura Bush ran over some guy. People tried to do the same with McCain-- but the other pilots just said he was a womanizer with a temper. Not exactly damning testimony against a Naval Aviator.
I'm kind of annoyed that you are trying to lump me into the 'he's a Muslim' group or the birther crowd. It is a pretty inelegant strawman attack. Everything I have said is well propagated, not like those fly by night claims
ShumaGorath wrote:
The real question is why am I admitting to it, since I'm not being manipulative (merely caustic and trollish) until I admit to what I'm doing. The answer to that probably lies even deeper in the rabbit hole of manipulation, or I'm just being flippant and arrogant.
Caustic behavior can have a manipulative affect. Manipulation is simply a conscientious regard for purpose.
But yeah, the latter. Very few people are that calculating.
Caustic behavior can have a manipulative affect. Manipulation is simply a conscientious regard for purpose.
But you can be caustic without being manipulative (unless simple communication itself is manipulation, in which case everything is anyway, semantics!). It requires either uncovered truth from an outside party or general admittance to really be "manipulative" insofar as the effects of that manipulation are concerned. Until people know its going on they are no more immune to it.
But yeah, the latter. Very few people are that calculating.
Shuma wrote:Hardly. You said you didn't mind it being a surveillance state, and wanted me to tell you about your own lolicon laws when I mentioned that you had draconian social laws. I didn't have the sheer force of will required to teach you about your own country, as you so willingly thought you could do for me (considering I had conversed about the patriot act with you previously it's stunning you felt the need to mention that it exists as if I didn't know).
I wasn't aware of the term 'lolicon' - I obviously don't spend as much time looking at hentai as you. I don't think it's 'draconian' to criminalise sexual images of children, photographic or otherwise. Perhaps you do... And I disagreed that Britain is a 'surveillance state'. I am aware that surveillance plays a large part in British law-enforcement - I stated that I preferred that to arming all police officers.
Shuma wrote:
When you don't care that it's a governmental surveillance state (one of the lynchpins of both the comic and movie) and when you somehow wanted me to inform you of the very same laws I had mentioned in the thread that spawned the PM conversation I begin to get the feeling that you're stunning levels of cognitive dissonance are coming to the fore and that it's a rabbit hole that I don't want to walk down when dogma or sebster can't make snide comments and take the reigns away from me when I'm tired....
Yeah, sure. 'Tired'. You were talking about things you have no first hand knowledge of, and were called on that. I don't have a national persecution complex - you have freely admitted you were just insulting my country. You have read some stuff on the internet and formed the opinion that Britain is some sort of Orwellian dystopia - I live here, and I can tell you that you are wrong.
ShumaGorath wrote:
But you can be caustic without being manipulative (unless simple communication itself is manipulation, in which case everything is anyway, semantics!). It requires either uncovered truth from an outside party or general admittance to really be "manipulative" insofar as the effects of that manipulation are concerned. Until people know its going on they are no more immune to it.
The barrier lies in awareness. Every cause has an effect, but most causes are non-cognizant.
Whilst the UK does have CCTV dotted about the place, being the fine capitalist nation we are, it's only to be found in areas of trade like city centre shopping streets and highstreets or in areas of public transport or hospitals etc. It certainly isn't up and down housing streets or in half the places it would be a benefit such as dark walkways or alleyways where actual crime against people takes place.
It's there to protect commercial property for the most part. Local authorities don't like paying for it anyway so it's shops etc that pay higher rates and enjoy the cameras.
Sweet Rebuttals Shuma! I guess you couldn't go with the stock 'OMG those aren't real sources' retort. Sorry to back you into a corner like that. But it is great to see you go from strength (straw man arguments) to strength (ad homenims)
I know about the transhumanism, right? IT is so crazy, I mean, me, who can't ever accept any other points of view, even when they are backed up by irrefutable evidence? Oh wait, that's you. sry
I wasn't aware of the term 'lolicon' - I obviously don't spend as much time looking at hentai as you.
Zing!
I don't think it's 'draconian' to criminalise sexual images of children, photographic or otherwise.
Except isofar as the liberal idea of freedom is one that allows all acts so long as they do no harm to fellow members of society in either a macro or personal level. child pornography is illegal because it exploits minors, a very tangible effect, lolicon has no such effect, and is merely a christian morality law tacked on because the subject is taboo. Hence your lack of reasoning for actually defending it beyond "i have no problem with it". This is no different than arguing against homosexuality because it's "unnatural".
And I disagreed that Britain is a 'surveillance state'.
I am aware that surveillance plays a large part in British law-enforcement - I stated that I preferred that to arming all police officers.
These are conflicting statements.
Yeah, sure. 'Tired'. You were talking about things you have no first hand knowledge of, and were called on that.
Perhaps because firsthand knowledge is irrelevant when discussing the widely published facts inherent to the surveillance methods utilized in British law enforcement? I've never been to the moon either, I guess I can't discuss that any more.
I don't have a national persecution complex - you have freely admitted you were just insulting my country.
You do, and yes I did. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
You have read some stuff on the internet and formed the opinion that Britain is some sort of Orwellian dystopia - I live here, and I can tell you that you are wrong.
Actually I read a lot about england and mocked it for being an Orwellian dystopia for the same reason I bait fateweaver. It's easy, and you react much more strongly than situation really requires. It allows me to catch you in your dissonant beliefs (admitting to living in a surveillance state but arguing about the reasons, approving of unjust morality laws because the item in question is tabboo).
---
Sweet Rebuttals Shuma! I guess you couldn't go with the stock 'OMG those aren't real sorces' retort. Sorry to back you into a corner like that.
The fact that you continue to trumpet the Ayers connection means I reeeaaallly don't have to go into length debating you. You've already discredited yourself.
Silverthorne wrote:Right... the one that he talks about in his own book. So, by your logic, is Obama's own book discredited than?
Nope, it's just that the link is utterly meaningless, thus when you trumpet it as somehow important you discredit yourself for magnifying a totally irrelevant connection. Bill clinton has met Kim Jong Ill. He's clearly tainted by that. George bush met Hu Jintao, he's now a communist. You get where I'm going with this?
I didn't realize that Kim Jong helped Clinton set up his political organizing apparatus! Cool story dude! IT IS IN HIS BOOK. He speaks frankly about how Ayers helped plug him into these community organizing groups, which got him started in the Chicago Machine. How is that like Kim Jong? Oh, wait, it clearly isn't you are just grasping at straws as the floor of your argument falls away.
Silverthorne wrote:I didn't realize that Kim Jong helped Clinton set up his political organizing apparatus! Cool story dude! IT IS IN HIS BOOK. He speaks frankly about how Ayers helped plug him into these community organizing groups, which got him started in the Chicago Machine. How is that like Kim Jong? Oh, wait, it clearly isn't you are just grasping at straws as the floor of your argument falls away.
You didn't understand what I was saying. I said that the connection was irrelevant because Ayers at the time was a respected educator. Which he was. You're grasping at anything bad to connect to Obama despite how irrelevant or meaingless simply so that you can further prove the connection that you had already formulated in your own mind. It's no different than assuming that bill clinton makes concessions to the north koreans (i think frazzled said that) or that President Bush intentionally capitulated to chinese trade ministers in order to strengthen communist governmental rule. You're drawing parallels where none exist and you're doing it to prove something you already believe, even without evidence. It's true that he was connected to Ayers, it's true that Ayers was convicted, neither fact proves that it's a black nationalist campaign, only that you're taking coincidences and trying to glue them together by believing hard enough. Something a transhumanist shouldn't do as you're supposed to plan on outliving these political issues, thus it's a poor idea to be taken in by the flash and pomp of one side or another.
The fact that he now radicalizes college students is irrelevant. A man, convicted by a jury of his peers for TRYING TO MURDER THE WIVES OF ARMY OFFICERS launched the presidential ambitions of the COMMANDER AND CHIEF of the armed forces. I capitalized the important parts, since you seem to have trouble making obvious connections. The fact that you can't see why this is problematic floors me. Are you willfully avoiding the obvious? You really don't see the problem here?
Did you go back and edit stuff in? It seems like your post shapeshifted while I was replying.
Silverthorne wrote:Yes, and Bin Laden is a respected cave interior designer. The fact that he know radicallizes college students is irrelevant. A man, convicted by a jury of his peers for TRYING TO MURDER THE WIVES OF ARMY OFFICERS launched the presidential ambitions of the COMMANDER AND CHIEF of the armed forces. I capitalized the important parts, since you seem to have trouble making obvious connections.
Ok, now say something beyond LOOK THESE TWO DUDES KNOW EACHOTHER to prove what you're saying. You can't, you won't, and thats why people keep responding as if you have no credibility. It's because you're arguing from a position that doesn't.
Shuma wrote:
Except isofar as the liberal idea of freedom is one that allows all acts so long as they do no harm to fellow members of society in either a macro or personal level. child pornography is illegal because it exploits minors, a very tangible effect, lolicon has no such effect, and is merely a christian morality law tacked on because the subject is taboo. Hence your lack of reasoning for actually defending it beyond "i have no problem with it". This is no different than arguing against homosexuality because it's "unnatural".
So you don't believe such images encourage the sexual objectification of children? Or they do, and that's just groovy? Which is it? I know which side my bread is buttered.
Shuma wrote:
Perhaps because firsthand knowledge is irrelevant when discussing the widely published facts inherent to the surveillance methods utilized in British law enforcement? I've never been to the moon either, I guess I can't discuss that any more.
My point is that if you had been to the UK you would know the term 'surveillance state' is wide of the mark - that term suggests an oppressive amount of surveillance, which isn't the case, as MeanGreenStompa rightly pointed out. There are no cameras on me now, nor would there be if I stepped out of my door. Acceptance of a certain level of surveillance in UK law enforcement is not the same as an acknowledgement that I live in a Surveillance State, where individuals have little or no privacy. But I think you know that.
Shuma wrote:Actually I read a lot about england and mocked it for being an Orwellian dystopia for the same reason I bait fateweaver. It's easy, and you react much more strongly than situation really requires.
Um, nope. I find you fairly amusing - I type all of my replies with a smile on my face. I'm just the sort of person who will say 'impressive use of academic language and everything, but you're fething clueless. Sorry.'
Which you are. Again, sorry.
EDIT:p.s. Silverthorne pushed the big red 'IGNORE' button on me today - all I did was /vomit...
Know each other? I said one plugged the other one into the political machine of Chicago politics, and launched his presidential ambitions. I said that several times, actually. Would you like me to quote myself?
So you don't believe such images encourage the sexual objectification of children? Or they do, and that's just groovy? Which is it? I know which side my bread is buttered.
Do you believe that allowing gay marriage encourages homosexuality? Do you believe that bondage encourages the objectification of women (A key part of its appeal)? Do you believe that supermodels encourage the objectification and starvation of teen girls? Do you believe that images of violence on television encourage violent behavior in children and adults? All these things are true (environment directly corresponds to attitude and belief), but it's funny how only one of them has been outlawed or is even under consideration for such (Well except the gay marriage thing, which I can't comment as to your position on).
My point is that if you had been to the UK you would know the term 'surveillance state' is wide of the mark - that term suggests an oppressive amount of surveillance, which isn't the case, as MeanGreenStompa rightly pointed out. There are no cameras on me now, nor would there be if I stepped out of my door. Acceptance of a certain level of surveillance in UK law enforcement is not the same as an acknowledgement that I live in a Surveillance State, where individuals have little or no privacy. But I think you know that.
Are your phones tapped? Are your internet connections monitored? A surveillance state doesn't watch you in your house, thats expensive and pointless. The U.K. just goes far enough to put cameras on every urban street corner, where most countries are happy with just listening to your cell conversations.
Um, nope. I find you fairly amusing - I type all of my replies with a smile on my face. I'm just the sort of person who will say 'impressive use of academic language and everything, but you're fething clueless. Sorry.'
Which you are. Again, sorry.
And yet you seem to know so very little about your own country and the laws upon which it rests.
Know each other? I said one plugged the other one into the political machine of Chicago politics, and launched his presidential ambitions. I said that several times, actually. Would you like me to quote myself?
No, I want you to come out and say why it's important, because so far all you've managed to say is that they worked together. We get it, we can all read. Just because you can repeat it doesn't mean it has relevance.
mattyrm wrote:Wait a minute, Britain is like V for vendetta? haha! Who said that?!
Why does my Californian girlfriend like it here so much then?
Because of all the sunshine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silverthorne wrote: The fact that he now radicalizes college students is irrelevant. A man, convicted by a jury of his peers for TRYING TO MURDER THE WIVES OF ARMY OFFICERS launched the presidential ambitions of the COMMANDER AND CHIEF of the armed forces. I capitalized the important parts, since you seem to have trouble making obvious connections. The fact that you can't see why this is problematic floors me. Are you willfully avoiding the obvious? You really don't see the problem here?
Did you go back and edit stuff in? It seems like your post shapeshifted while I was replying.
A lot of American voters clearly didn't see the problem.
The U.K. just goes far enough to put cameras on every urban street corner, where most countries are happy with just listening to your cell conversations.
Define 'urban'. There are no cameras on my street or on any residential street nearby, and I live in a fairly built-up area.
As for the censorship thing - there are some things that I believe should not be for public consumption, sexual images of children being a big one. But that's because I find the idea distasteful (to say the least) - it's not a 'moral' thing. Everywhere has censorship though, that's why US TV doesn't show child porn during breakfast news programs. you may have noticed.
Do you believe that allowing gay marriage encourages homosexuality?
Nope. And I am absolutely Pro-Gay marriage.
Do you believe that bondage encourages the objectification of women (A key part of its appeal)?
That's a little bit of an over-simplification.
Do you believe that supermodels encourage the objectification and starvation of teen girls?
Yes, absolutely. Does the word 'thinspiration' mean anything to you?
Do you believe that images of violence on television encourage violent behavior in children and adults?
Not necessarily, but I believe that children should not see violent images, because they would find find them distressing. But I suppose there could be a de-sensitising effect.
And yet you seem to know so very little about your own country and the laws upon which it rests.
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I could argue that you know nothing about the practicalities of living in the UK, regardless of what you think you know.
Silverthorne wrote:I didn't realize that Kim Jong helped Clinton set up his political organizing apparatus! Cool story dude! IT IS IN HIS BOOK. He speaks frankly about how Ayers helped plug him into these community organizing groups, which got him started in the Chicago Machine. How is that like Kim Jong? Oh, wait, it clearly isn't you are just grasping at straws as the floor of your argument falls away.
The problem isn't that he talked to Ayers. The problem is that you view that conversation, and any aid that came out of it, as sufficient to damn the man.
I've spoken to Lou Dobbs about foreign relations, does that mean that I now believe illegal immigration is the greatest foreign threat to America? No, clearly not. Stop pretending as though guilt can be determined by association. Bill Ayers is an intelligent, and conflicted man. He made some unfortunate choices in his past, and learned from the mistake. It would be foolish to discredit his opinion on that basis.
You frowned upon Shuma's use of ad hominem. Your entire argument is ad hominem. Look in the damn mirror.
Silverthorne wrote:Know each other? I said one plugged the other one into the political machine of Chicago politics, and launched his presidential ambitions. I said that several times, actually. Would you like me to quote myself?
And? That doesn't actually mean anything.
Or do you think that John McCain's connection to the CEO of RUSAL makes him an insidious destroyer of American virginity?
Back to the original topic, I didn't see anything incredibly wrong with Obama's speech. Even a president doesn't sneeze at a million bucks and what is probably regarded as the most prestigious award in the world.
I particularly liked his line about peace not stopping Hitler's armies.
I don't like Obama any more than Fateweaver does, but I don't think he said anything wrong.
Back off-topic. I find it interesting that Cheney's connections with Haliburton are damning, but Obama's connections with Ayers and Wright are not. Bush is a draft dodging piece of gak but Clinton is not. Palin is a slow but Biden is not - the list goes on and on.
Especially MGS, your comments in this thread have taken the form of broad based attacks.
Since the Mods seem to be MIA, I'll remind people about rule #1.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Back off-topic. I find it interesting that Cheney's connections with Haliburton are damning, but Obama's connections with Ayers and Wright are not. Bush is a draft dodging piece of gak but Clinton is not. Palin is a slow but Biden is not - the list goes on and on.
Cheney's connection to Halliburton was based on finance, rather than influence, and therefore isn't really comparable to Obama's connection to Ayers and Wright. However, it still isn't damning. Cheney's behavior is damning, and the connection serves to underline it.
Dodging the draft isn't damning either.
However, Palin's errors tend to be of the sort that indicate a lack of intelligence, rather than a lack of knowledge. Biden makes mistakes that show he doesn't know what he's talking about, but he does not make mistakes which force questions with respect to his ability to learn. Palin's foreign policy gaffe was a mistake of the latter sort.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Back off-topic. I find it interesting that Cheney's connections with Haliburton are damning, but Obama's connections with Ayers and Wright are not. Bush is a draft dodging piece of gak but Clinton is not. Palin is a slow but Biden is not - the list goes on and on.
Cheney's connection to Halliburton was based on finance, rather than influence, and therefore isn't really comparable to Obama's connection to Ayers and Wright. However, it still isn't damning. Cheney's behavior is damning, and the connection serves to underline it.
Dodging the draft isn't damning either.
However, Palin's errors tend to be of the sort that indicate a lack of intelligence, rather than a lack of knowledge. Biden makes mistakes that show he doesn't know what he's talking about, but he does not make mistakes which force questions with respect to his ability to learn. Palin's foreign policy gaffe was a mistake of the latter sort.
From my point of view, Obama's connections with radical left-wingers like Van Jones and Ayers and Wright aren't damning in and of themselves. However, his actions combined with those connections make it so.
Dodging the draft may not have been damning for Clinton, but you cannot deny that Bush got a lot of flak for going into the Guard during 'Nam. It's been alluded to in this very thread by MGS - I believe he said Bush was a "draft-dodging piece of gak." I can't be bothered to scroll through 6 pages to find the exact quote.
The fact that Biden repeatedly shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about shows that he doesn't have the ability to learn from his mistakes. I would argue that both lack the intelligence for the job.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
From my point of view, Obama's connections with radical left-wingers like Van Jones and Ayers and Wright aren't damning in and of themselves. However, his actions combined with those connections make it so.
I shouldn't have said that Cheney's actions were damning, that doesn't really express my feelings with respect to the man. Its more that I would accept an argument which used his actions as the primary means of damning him; much as you have done with Obama. Though I still feel the inclusion of associations is little more than poncy rhetoric. We all know, or associate with, people who we aren't proud of. Its just part of life.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Dodging the draft may not have been damning for Clinton, but you cannot deny that Bush got a lot of flak for going into the Guard during 'Nam. It's been alluded to in this very thread by MGS - I believe he said Bush was a "draft-dodging piece of gak." I can't be bothered to scroll through 6 pages to find the exact quote.
I agree, Bush got a lot of draft-dodger crap. It was stupid then, and it remains so now. But I don't see how observing the supposed irony of a double standard really gets to the point. When it comes down to it people who have double standards often know they have double standards. They simply don't care. That's what emotion does to debate.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
The fact that Biden repeatedly shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about shows that he doesn't have the ability to learn from his mistakes. I would argue that both lack the intelligence for the job.
Biden certainly isn't the smartest man in the world, but that's something to be expected. Highly intelligent people tend to be mediocre politicians for the simple fact that they struggle to relate to the largest chunk of the bell curve. That said, Biden is right more often than he's wrong, which is really all we can ask of anyone. The same can be said of Bush.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
From my point of view, Obama's connections with radical left-wingers like Van Jones and Ayers and Wright aren't damning in and of themselves. However, his actions combined with those connections make it so.
I shouldn't have said that Cheney's actions were damning, that doesn't really express my feelings with respect to the man. Its more that I would accept an argument which used his actions as the primary means of damning him; much as you have done with Obama. Though I still feel the inclusion of associations is little more than poncy rhetoric. We all know, or associate with, people who we aren't proud of. Its just part of life.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Dodging the draft may not have been damning for Clinton, but you cannot deny that Bush got a lot of flak for going into the Guard during 'Nam. It's been alluded to in this very thread by MGS - I believe he said Bush was a "draft-dodging piece of gak." I can't be bothered to scroll through 6 pages to find the exact quote.
I agree, Bush got a lot of draft-dodger crap. It was stupid then, and it remains so now. But I don't see how observing the supposed irony of a double standard really gets to the point. When it comes down to it people who have double standards often know they have double standards. They simply don't care. That's what emotion does to debate.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
The fact that Biden repeatedly shows that he doesn't know what he's talking about shows that he doesn't have the ability to learn from his mistakes. I would argue that both lack the intelligence for the job.
Biden certainly isn't the smartest man in the world, but that's something to be expected. Highly intelligent people tend to be mediocre politicians for the simple fact that they struggle to relate to the largest chunk of the bell curve. That said, Biden is right more often than he's wrong, which is really all we can ask of anyone. The same can be said of Bush.
I... uhm... what?
I think I agree with you - thesis and antithesis creating a synthesis. This can't be possible. I never agree with you.
Silverthorne wrote:Of course it is! Good thing I didn't say anything like that. I'm noting how one person was as close to America has to aristocracy- you kind of have to be in the military to understand what a big deal the McCain family is- and refused to exploit that to improve his situation. Especially impressive considering his situation was solitary confinement in a cell sized so you could neither sit or stand. That to me is a far more American ideal than Mr. Obama, who did nothing but exploit his background for personal gain- first by making connections in Black Radicalism to assure choice jobs and education, and then by exploiting unjustified white guilt during the campaign.
You say being a veteran doesn't make someone more qualified to be president, but then you go on explaining how McCain's service made him so much more qualified. Background and life story is nice, but what matters is policy.
Also, I was under the impression that Australia was hardly effected by the Queen at all. I understand that the Queen and the Governor General are both figureheads at the top of the Government, but when I lived in your country, I never got the impression that they wielded any significant political power. Obviously nations that have a figurehead Monarch for tradition's sake are not odious to the United States. If the people of some nation have chosen to institute a policy whereby they democratically limit the power of their monarch, that isn't really a true Monarchy is it? And therefore there is no problem.
I was ignoring the role of the Queen and GG, as they're just figureheads. No, the key difference is that our executive is chosen by the legislative to enact their will, while your executive is elected by the people. Despite this very important difference we still recognise your President - and why shouldn't we? You're good people with a functioning government, it would be absurd to shun the key figures of your government. So why shouldn't the US do the same with the UK or Japan?
The idea that anyone who opposes The Chosen One is a racist has been battered down the collective throats of America for way too long. Throughout the entire Tea Party movement, which in no way concerned with the fact that our Chief Executive is only half white, the immediate response of the MSM was to paint the protestors has violent, unhinged racist.
The media hasn't covered the Tea Party movement very well at all. The movement has a racist component and that has been exaggerated, while the real crazy at the core of the movement has hardly been examined at all. It's the same crazy that was around during the Clinton Whitehouse, and it's growing.
You forget Scruffy, this is why we are not allowed to talk bad about Obama.
If you believe the Bible you know Christ rose again around 3,000 years ago and ascended into Heaven. What was left out was that he came back down to Earth, this time as a black man.
Back off-topic. I find it interesting that Cheney's connections with Haliburton are damning, but Obama's connections with Ayers and Wright are not. Bush is a draft dodging piece of gak but Clinton is not. Palin is a [let's avoid this kind of usage] but Biden is not - the list goes on and on.
I suppose the differences are...
Cheney used his position to help engineer a war in which his corporation was vastly enriched, while Obama simply accepted some amount of help for his campaign.
Bush used his establishment connections to put him in a safe National Guard unit, while Clinton through his own efforts won a prestigious academic scholarship which granted him immunity from drafting.
Most people should be able to see the clear moral differences in those situations.
Palin clearly is, let's say limited in her political aptitude and experience, while Biden is an experienced operator.
Of course if right wing voters dislike confronting these obvious points, it is simpler to accuse a left-wing controlled media of having manufactured the position. It's difficult to do that and account for Fox News though.
As long as a lack of intelligence remains an undesirable trait whatever term that's being used to refer to the mentally disabled is going to turn into an insult. For example: idiot, moron, imbecile.
(Is slow even used to refer to the mentally disabled professionally any more?)
I think there are two aspects to the use of insulting language. One is the effect on the target, and the other is the effect on the possible audience.
Politicians and other people who put themselves into public life, must expect to attract negative as well as positive comment. The use of insults is an accepted part of such discourse.
However, insults which are upsetting or disrespectful to onlookers are not easy to justify when there are alternatives.
Various modern usages, such as 'slow', 'gay' and even 'n00b' are widely held to be in this category.
Kilkrazy wrote:Cheney used his position to help engineer a war in which his corporation was vastly enriched, while Obama simply accepted some amount of help for his campaign.
Not that I am a big fan of the war, or of Mr. Cheney, but I am a stickler for facts. There were many, many contracts awarded by the US government in the reconstruction and ongoing occupation of Iraq. Of the nearly $1 Trillion dollars spent thus far on both the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts only $85 billion have been awarded to private firms. That number was put out in a report in 2008 by the CBO, an impartial and respectable source. Halliburton was awarded a contract for $8 billion after the overthrow of the Ba'athist regime, but this is a paltry number when compared to the regular contracts awarded by the DOD, and only one of many, many contracts. Incidentally Halliburton's profits rose to their peaks from 2005-2008, but this was of course after the major drop off in government contracts related to Iraq and the conflicts theater of operations. Frankly, I chalk up the whole Halliburton conspiracy theory to nonsense, and I place the blame for the invasion on outdated military intelligence, misguided idealism and a brash American emotional response to 9/11. My sources were: Reuters, the Congressional Budget Office, and Halliburton's own reports that are submitted to the Federal government.
Kilkrazy wrote:Bush used his establishment connections to put him in a safe National Guard unit, while Clinton through his own efforts won a prestigious academic scholarship which granted him immunity from drafting.
That's not entirely true. Both President Clinton and President Bush used avenues to "dodge the draft." And no, the Rhodes Scholarship does not grant immunity from the draft, at least at the time it didn't, I may be wrong about nowadays though. But since we don't have a draft it is irrelevant. President Bush actually used a legal and easy method to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam. After a draft card is drawn only so many people with that card actually get drafted. In order to avoid being drafted many men would simply go out and join a different branch of the military. My dad knew several guys who did, because if you are enlisted you have a legal contract with that branch of the military, and even the draft can't override it. GWB simply went and joined the Texas Air National Guard, although I am sure his dad was watching the whole time. President Clinton though was not without his own connections. He worked for Sen. Fullbright, the Fullbright Fellowship is his legacy, and for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is widely assumed, and indeed declared as fact by President Clinton's draft officer, that Sen. Fulbright was instrumental in getting Bill Clinton assigned to ROTC status and thus preventing him from being drafted. I don't blame him, I probably wouldn't have supported the war either.
Kilkrazy wrote:Most people should be able to see the clear moral differences in those situations.
Well I can't, they look pretty similar.
Kilkrazy wrote:Palin clearly is, let's say limited in her political aptitude and experience, while Biden is an experienced operator.
On Palin you are absolutely correct, although on Biden you are rather deluded. Biden is a horrible orator, he rambles, says awkward, wrong and even inappropriate things knowingly. Biden, while yes experienced, is not some grand orator. Even his fellow Democrats have said that.
Kilkrazy wrote:Of course if right wing voters dislike confronting these obvious points, it is simpler to accuse a left-wing controlled media of having manufactured the position. It's difficult to do that and account for Fox News though
Its because they don't do basic research. Knowledge is Power...or so they say....
JEB_Stuart wrote:And no, the Rhodes Scholarship does not grant immunity from the draft, at least at the time it didn't, I may be wrong about nowadays though.
Yes it does, as does any other collegiate activity.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
But since we don't have a draft it is irrelevant.
Yes we do.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I don't blame him, I probably wouldn't have supported the war either.
I'm already de-drafted.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Well I can't, they look pretty similar.
dogma wrote:Yes it does, as does any other collegiate activity.
No, the Rhodes Scholarship is considered post-graduate since you have to have a college degree to qualify. The only post-graduate work that was exempted for the time period was studies in Divinity, and Medical studies. Law, and other post-graduate work is not exempted at the time. This has since been changed to include all collegiate work.
dogma wrote:Yes we do.
No we don't. We have registration for Selective Service, but we do not have a draft. Those are two completely different things.
dogma wrote:I'm already de-drafted.
I have considered the option, as if it were a truly dire emergency I would probably enlist. But I don't feel the need to be drafted for any wars by the US. I am pretty sure that I would not be able to kill a person if it came down to it. I just don't think I could do it. That would make me a pretty lousy soldier I think....
JEB_Stuart wrote:No, the Rhodes Scholarship is considered post-graduate since you have to have a college degree to qualify. The only post-graduate work that was exempted for the time period was studies in Divinity, and Medical studies. Law, and other post-graduate work is not exempted at the time. This has since been changed to include all collegiate work.
To my knowledge all collegiate (or graduate) work has always been a standard for exemption.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
No we don't. We have registration for Selective Service, but we do not have a draft. Those are two completely different things.
One is the latent form of the other. They are distinct in the sense that adultery is distinct from fantasy.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I have considered the option, as if it were a truly dire emergency I would probably enlist. But I don't feel the need to be drafted for any wars by the US. I am pretty sure that I would not be able to kill a person if it came down to it. I just don't think I could do it. That would make me a pretty lousy soldier I think....
And Dogma spake to the Dakkites saying:
"Surely I say to you, if you have a registration for selective service you have committed conscription in your heart."
Da Boss wrote:Statements like that make you look like a narrow minded prick, Frazzled.
Do not concur. The United States should not recognize the authority of kings. The fundamental concept of American law is the idea that all men are created equal. Monarchies are so far misaligned with this rationale that any association with them taints the purity of the movement. BHO bows to sultans and kneels before the font of public opinion. He has never suffered for his country or his beliefs. His competitor had five planes and most of an aircraft carrier destroyed underneath of him. He was held for years as a POW being tortured almost daily. He refused to break faith with his comrades and accept early release. And he did all of this because he believed that that the freedoms Americans enjoy were the unalienable right of every human. He fought and nearly died to secure the rights for people he did not even know- whom he had no kinship with. And Europe as a whole mocked him. The same parliament that decorates BHO for successfully taking advantage of his minority status vilified a man who rejected his own aristocratic background to fight for what he believed in, a fight that nearly killed him a half dozen times. Americans should be amused that such a body thinks their judgment is valued, or even considered.
Word on that.
It should be noted, histoerically that was US protocol. US Presidents didn't bow and rarely met with royalty. Frankly they didn't leave US shores.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silverthorne wrote:
Da Boss wrote:Statements like that make you look like a narrow minded prick, Frazzled.
Do not concur. The United States should not recognize the authority of kings. The fundamental concept of American law is the idea that all men are created equal. Monarchies are so far misaligned with this rationale that any association with them taints the purity of the movement. BHO bows to sultans and kneels before the font of public opinion. He has never suffered for his country or his beliefs. His competitor had five planes and most of an aircraft carrier destroyed underneath of him. He was held for years as a POW being tortured almost daily. He refused to break faith with his comrades and accept early release. And he did all of this because he believed that that the freedoms Americans enjoy were the unalienable right of every human. He fought and nearly died to secure the rights for people he did not even know- whom he had no kinship with. And Europe as a whole mocked him. The same parliament that decorates BHO for successfully taking advantage of his minority status vilified a man who rejected his own aristocratic background to fight for what he believed in, a fight that nearly killed him a half dozen times. Americans should be amused that such a body thinks their judgment is valued, or even considered.
Word on that.
It should be noted, historically that was US protocol. US Presidents didn't bow and rarely met with royalty. Frankly they didn't leave US shores. Teddy Roosevelt was the first. As travel ebcame easier this became more of an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:Nowadays Ayers is a respected educator who won the Chicago Citizen of the Year Award in 1997 for his work with the Annenberg Challenge Project. And Obama's barely associated with him. They're certainly not friends or anything.
Wright is a bit of a nutjub. I'm not a fan, and Obama should have walked away from him earlier. That said, virtually anyone associated with the Republican party has equally big religious nutjobs associated with them.
He's respected only by fellow travellers. kudos to me for using fellow travellers. tee hee!
Teh_K42 wrote:And Dogma spake to the Dakkites saying:
"Surely I say to you, if you have a registration for selective service you have committed conscription in your heart."
You've had the opportunity to say no, or move. I suspect you either approve, or feel indifferent.
"I love this country, and its non-socialism, but I will run away when I'm forced to do anything"
Nixon bowing to the previous Japanese Emperor. You know, the one who was Emperor during Pearl Harbor and the Rape of Nanking, the one who actually had real political power before Hiroshima: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/The_Nixon_bow.html
Even the Sun-God Reagan, He From Whom All Good Things Flow, Who Single-Handedly Ended The Cold War..... bowed to the Queen of England. Egads! Didn't we fight a frikkin' revolution so that Americans didn't have to debase themselves in such a fashion?!?!?!
I am in a VERY snarky "glass half empty because it is broken" mood today, so I well answer your question based off of my experiences here in Dakka:
FETHING YES!
Apparently, it doesn't matter if it is fact or fiction, anecdote or Wiki article... If some can find offense to it, they will... It is the way of the web.
Silverthorne, I gotta disagree with you. Recognising and respecting important diplomatic figures is just courtesy, and courtesy should be how you approach interactions unless you have a strong reason to do otherwise.
Teh_K42 wrote:And Dogma spake to the Dakkites saying:
"Surely I say to you, if you have a registration for selective service you have committed conscription in your heart."
You've had the opportunity to say no, or move. I suspect you either approve, or feel indifferent.
"I love this country, and its non-socialism, but I will run away when I'm forced to do anything"
I didn't actually mean anything by it, it was an abysmally bad joke about you likening conscription and selective service with adultery and fantasy.
I'm not sure what you mean by "this" country because despite my flag I am Australian.
Teh_K42 wrote:
I didn't actually mean anything by it, it was an abysmally bad joke about you likening conscription and selective service with adultery and fantasy.
I'm not sure what you mean by "this" country because despite my flag I am Australian.
Ah, my bad. Chalk that up to internet hostility, or alcohol, whichever you prefer.
Fateweaver wrote:If you believe the Bible you know Christ rose again around 3,000 years ago and ascended into Heaven. What was left out was that he came back down to Earth, this time as a black man.
First of all, around 3,000 years ago?
Second up, 'this time as a black man'? What colour was the last one?
Well he certainly wasn't black if that is what you are insinuating. He was most likely very tan....
That's where colour and ethnicity gets quite subjective. Do you take the Malcolm X line than anyone that isn't white is black? Or do you ignore the specifics of colour and look at what was said, by whom, and wonder what being black had to do with any of it?
sebster wrote:That's where colour and ethnicity gets quite subjective. Do you take the Malcolm X line than anyone that isn't white is black? Or do you ignore the specifics of colour and look at what was said, by whom, and wonder what being black had to do with any of it?
That comment was part joke, part serious. I don't really consider much of what Malcolm X said. If anything Christ was a Jew-Greek. He lived in a post Hellenization period but was a Hebrew. He would have looked like an arab. The idea that anyone isn't white is black is stupid. I don't even like the color wheel....
sebster wrote:That's where colour and ethnicity gets quite subjective. Do you take the Malcolm X line than anyone that isn't white is black? Or do you ignore the specifics of colour and look at what was said, by whom, and wonder what being black had to do with any of it?
That comment was part joke, part serious. I don't really consider much of what Malcolm X said. If anything Christ was a Jew-Greek. He lived in a post Hellenization period but was a Hebrew. He would have looked like an arab. The idea that anyone isn't white is black is stupid. I don't even like the color wheel....
Curd we take a moment to gather our thoughts here? I really think that this has been milked dry, and I am starting to get feta with this whole scheme. I know you are trying to moo-ve this along, but whey should focus on a new point.
Take the piss all you want, mate - I have a point do I not?
t. 
Vietnam was not about 'freedom' - it was about American Imperialism. It doesn't diminish the efforts of McCain and people like him, but don't pretend the war was about 'freedom'. The word has been hijacked by the American right-wing - it is meaningless now. See 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' and 'Freedom Liquor' for more details.
And I disagreed that Britain is a 'surveillance state'. I am aware that surveillance plays a large part in British law-enforcement - I stated that I preferred that to arming all police officers.
