Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Slarg232 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:We are at war, we declared a war on terrorism which led us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems Iran is next on the "to invade" list.

Son, what we are in is classified as a Skirmish, we only ever fought in five Wars in our history; Revolutionary, Civil, WW, WWII, and the Vietnam (Not sure about that last one).

I hate to say it, and I know it's tragic in it's entirity, but when only five people die during a fight, that's a very, very good thing in an actual war.

The gulf wars don't count then?

Gulf War was relatively minor. Ignoring Korea shows ignorance though.

Amaya wrote:Gulf War was relatively minor. Ignoring Korea shows ignorance though.

It could have been Korea, all I know is that the Korean/Vietnam War was the only other one classified as such by congress.

It's irrelevant as to what it's classified as. Anything with an excess of 50,000 casualties should be considered a war, albeit a small one in comparison to total wars.

Agreed, but it's Congress you have to tell that to.

Slarg232 wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Personally, I hate the N-bomb for the double standard; it's racist if a white guy says it, but if a black guy says it it's ok, and that's NOT racist at ALL! Now, I'm not saying I should be able to go around saying N-word, N-word, but neither should anyone else, really.....

Yes, its so unfair towards us white people! We aren't allowed to say the n-word! And all we get in return are higher incomes, better education, history rewritten in our favor and 44 out of 45 presidents! Why, we ought to form our own organization, just for white people, where we fight back against the oppressive blacks.

[/sarcasm]

Yes, it's so unfair towards us white people! If you say anything bad about the one president, you get called a racist! There is a Black People Only scholarship fund, but to have a White People Only Scholarship is RACIST! (1) Truely it's totally allowable and correct that the majority of Americans think that white men and women cannot be discriminated against, because their WHITE, which is a skin color! (2)

We should totally allow the country to fall back into segregation, because it's obviously white mans turn to be discriminated against! (For those of you whom think that's ludicrous, look at WW and WWII; Germans were discriminated against because of WW, and so Hitler poisoned quite a few peoples' minds into thinking it was their turn to discriminate.....) (3)


I beleive in equality; I get payed $40 an hour for a job (I wish), I expect the black woman to get paid the same exact amount. (4) I, as a white male, have to go to the frontline if there is a war? I expect a black woman to go there too. (5) I expect that if I get fired for saying one thing, a black woman deserves to get fired for saying the exact same thing. You do not get it both ways, you do not get to go back and forth; your my equal or your not, you can't have it both ways, and to expect anything else is to be not worth my time. (6)

Did you seriously just compare Affirmative Action to Nazi Germany?

Alright, let's go through your points. I've labelled them in your post.

1) This is an extremely ignorant view point. Black people are disadvantaged from the start. Statistically they grow up in poorer houses and get worse education. This makes it very hard to get into college, even though they are just as smart as white people. So, the scholarships were made to fight this. Even with the scholarships, colleges are still vastly dominated by rich white kids.

2) White people can be discriminated against. But it is extremely rare. And, statistically, black people get it way worse. They have a harder time getting hired, if they do get hired they get paid less and of course the justice system is drastically biased against them.

3) Okay, that's a ridiculous example that the US isn't even close to. In fact, that's so insane that it isn't even relevant to the conversation at all. Giving black people scholarships will not create Nazi Germany, no matter how you put it. Besides, I can come up with my own insane example; Hitler didn't care about giving black people scholarships and neither do you, so that means your policies will create Nazi Germany. See, it doesn't make sense. No sense at all. Completely insane. Completely bonkers.

4) Good.

5) I agree with this, the draft laws need to be modified. But that's a rare instance of sexism against men, not a rare instance of racism against white people.

6) No, you can't. This is difficult to explain, but I'll try. You know how you're allowed to insult yourself ("I'm so stupid sometimes, heh") but not others ("He's so stupid sometimes, heh"). Its kind of like that. You can make fun of your own race or gender, but not any else. Women will get fired for saying, "Men were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us women, the superior gender" and men will get fired for saying, "Women were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us men, the superior gender". Does that make sense?

Slarg232 wrote:I highly doubt "Volunteer" will have anything to do with it

Then you don't know what you're talking about.

Slarg232 wrote:so policy is sure to have changed.

It has changed... from draft to all volunteer.

The army itself does not want a draft. It's a logistical, morale, and discipline nightmare.

Slarg232 wrote:You do not get it both ways, you do not get to go back and forth; your my equal or your not, you can't have it both ways, and to expect anything else is to be not worth my time.

The whole idea of the races being equal because we say they died years ago. Now its all about the recognition racism, or at least its legacy, still has a strong impact on our daily lives.

There's an offshoot of the discourse surrounding racism that suggests white people can't be racially discriminated against, by definition. Its called Critical Race Theory, and its proponents are idiots.

There's also an offshoot of the discourse involving white people claiming that they are somehow being victimized because there are scholarships that available exclusively to certain minorities, among other things. I generally consider them to be self-entitled, among other things.

As for saying something in a certain context getting you fired: imagine saying , offhandedly, that you had sex with a woman named Carol. Imagine further that your boss overhears you, and becomes suspicious because a co-workers wife is named Carol, and a very good friend of yours who you play "tennis" with, and everyone but her husband knows there are quotes around "tennis". You may well find yourself terminated not because you spoke of a personal matter, but because you spoke of a personal matter that is likely disruptive to the office. Had Carol's husband said the same thing, however, there would not likely be an issue.

LoneLictor wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:Personally, I hate the N-bomb for the double standard; it's racist if a white guy says it, but if a black guy says it it's ok, and that's NOT racist at ALL! Now, I'm not saying I should be able to go around saying N-word, N-word, but neither should anyone else, really.....

Yes, its so unfair towards us white people! We aren't allowed to say the n-word! And all we get in return are higher incomes, better education, history rewritten in our favor and 44 out of 45 presidents! Why, we ought to form our own organization, just for white people, where we fight back against the oppressive blacks.

[/sarcasm]

Yes, it's so unfair towards us white people! If you say anything bad about the one president, you get called a racist! There is a Black People Only scholarship fund, but to have a White People Only Scholarship is RACIST! (1) Truely it's totally allowable and correct that the majority of Americans think that white men and women cannot be discriminated against, because their WHITE, which is a skin color! (2)

We should totally allow the country to fall back into segregation, because it's obviously white mans turn to be discriminated against! (For those of you whom think that's ludicrous, look at WW and WWII; Germans were discriminated against because of WW, and so Hitler poisoned quite a few peoples' minds into thinking it was their turn to discriminate.....) (3)


I beleive in equality; I get payed $40 an hour for a job (I wish), I expect the black woman to get paid the same exact amount. (4) I, as a white male, have to go to the frontline if there is a war? I expect a black woman to go there too. (5) I expect that if I get fired for saying one thing, a black woman deserves to get fired for saying the exact same thing. You do not get it both ways, you do not get to go back and forth; your my equal or your not, you can't have it both ways, and to expect anything else is to be not worth my time. (6)

Did you seriously just compare Affirmative Action to Nazi Germany?

Alright, let's go through your points. I've labelled them in your post.

1) This is an extremely ignorant view point. Black people are disadvantaged from the start. Statistically they grow up in poorer houses and get worse education. This makes it very hard to get into college, even though they are just as smart as white people. So, the scholarships were made to fight this. Even with the scholarships, colleges are still vastly dominated by rich white kids.

2) White people can be discriminated against. But it is extremely rare. And, statistically, black people get it way worse. They have a harder time getting hired, if they do get hired they get paid less and of course the justice system is drastically biased against them.

3) Okay, that's a ridiculous example that the US isn't even close to. In fact, that's so insane that it isn't even relevant to the conversation at all. Giving black people scholarships will not create Nazi Germany, no matter how you put it. Besides, I can come up with my own insane example; Hitler didn't care about giving black people scholarships and neither do you, so that means your policies will create Nazi Germany. See, it doesn't make sense. No sense at all. Completely insane. Completely bonkers.

4) Good.

5) I agree with this, the draft laws need to be modified. But that's a rare instance of sexism against men, not a rare instance of racism against white people.

6) No, you can't. This is difficult to explain, but I'll try. You know how you're allowed to insult yourself ("I'm so stupid sometimes, heh") but not others ("He's so stupid sometimes, heh"). Its kind of like that. You can make fun of your own race or gender, but not any else. Women will get fired for saying, "Men were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us women, the superior gender" and men will get fired for saying, "Women were designed by God to serve as sex slaves for us men, the superior gender". Does that make sense?

1) So wait, it's the POOR black kid versus the RICH white kid? Sounds like a problem that is not exactly determined by Race. If you go into a poor neighborhood that has blacks as a majority and say "I'm going to help the 10 poorest people here". A non-biased aide group will give it to the ten poorest people in that neighborhood. The "Black Only" Scholarship will see #6, who is white (Or hell, anything other than black, take your pick) and say "Let's skip him". Not because he needs less help, not because he is dumber, but because he. is. white. Racism right there, and to deny this is down right ignorant, as the cool kids put it these days.

If you go into a poor neighborhood and say "I want to help these kids out", you help those who need it most, not "Those of a specific skin color who need it most".

2) I just typed in "Whites can" on google, and the fourth most frequent search were "Only Whites can be racist". Blacks only get it worse in white dominant societies/neighbor hoods; In Black, Hispanic, Asian etc dominated societies/neighborhoods, this is not the case, and the exact opposite can be observed; the Whites will always be targeted over any other group, solely because they are white.

3) It will not, no. I see that if you don't post /Sarcasm it goes right over the heads of people, I will try to remember that for later use. The WW to WWII part was SOLELY to show that hard feelings don't often die.

4) Yes.

5) I used White Male and Black Female because they are opposites; white to black, male to female.

6) Bull. It's not about WHAT you say, it's about tone. If a dude and a gal meet eachother, they will often talk, things said may possibly include "Women are crazy anyway" or "Men are stupid and women are crazy, but mostly because men are stupid", And no one will think different. Now, take the same tone, and a black person can call a white person "Cracker", or rather a slur for white. No one will think twice about this. The moment a white person says "[see forum posting rules]" (Notice how one is blocked out, but the other isn't?), which is a slur for black, and everyone flips the FETH out. This is equality how?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I highly doubt "Volunteer" will have anything to do with it

Then you don't know what you're talking about.

Your right, many people got out of their graves and went to vote during the 2008 Elections, and it's not as though the representatives in Congress are really voting the way their people want them to, anyway (Looking at you, Pomeroy)

Slarg232 wrote:so policy is sure to have changed.

It has changed... from draft to all volunteer.

The army itself does not want a draft. It's a logistical, morale, and discipline nightmare.

This is the same army that bends over for Congress to take away funding/paying the soldiers so they can enjoy their expensive lifestyles and avoid taxes, correct?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:There's also an offshoot of the discourse involving white people claiming that they are somehow being victimized because there are scholarships that available exclusively to certain minorities, among other things. I generally consider them to be self-entitled, among other things.

So what your saying is that it's perfectly fine to be given a hand out just because your skin color falls on the darker side? That if you met two people, one was a White straight A student, one was a Black straight B student, that you would rather see the straight B student get money solely because he's black?

As for saying something in a certain context getting you fired: imagine saying , offhandedly, that you had sex with a woman named Carol. Imagine further that your boss overhears you, and becomes suspicious because a co-workers wife is named Carol, and a very good friend of yours who you play "tennis" with, and everyone but her husband knows there are quotes around "tennis". You may well find yourself terminated not because you spoke of a personal matter, but because you spoke of a personal matter that is likely disruptive to the office. Had Carol's husband said the same thing, however, there would not likely be an issue.

That is not an arguement based upon race, but rather poor choices (First for doing it, second for bragging about it), and yes, yes you should be fired for that.




Ok, let's start over here, let me try to get my point across; A College allows Fraternities to form however they please, providing that they pay a fee (And for some odd reason, the college itself has to accept your money). A bunch of Minority students (Pick one), pretty cool dudes, get together and say "We want to make a Frat for people of our Minority". The college will have no problem with that, and it will accept their check with an open smile. Along comes Jason, a white student, pretty cool guy, sees this Frat and thinks "Hey, I love what they have done with the place," Asks to join them. The Frat Boys, being cool guys, like hanging out with him, but decline letting him into the house because "He isn't in our Minority".

Jason, at this point, has several options, one of which is going to the school board/deen/principle/whatever and says "Hey, I want in this Frat House, but they won't let me because I'm white." Jason is going to get laughed out of the meeting, because it's a House SOLELY for that Minority. Jason decides in a fit of anger that he is going to make a "Majority Fraternity", only Whites can join.

The School has two options at this point. One, they can reject it, because they are afraid of the media backlash of a "White Power Fraternity" being at their school. This is more likely to happen than Option 2. Option two has him go forward with it, and then the media gets ahold of it, and THAT looks alot like this:




No where in that storm of Gak will you ever hear mention of Minority Frat.

So why is it ok for there to be a Frat of Minority Only, but not a Frat of Whites Only?

If you honestly believe that any politician would commit political suicide and instate a draft, I think you're sorely mistaken. The last real chance they had to do that was in 2001, and something like that isn't likely to happen again any time soon.

Even in THAT time, when we were at our most vulnerable, the talks of a draft were considered ludicrous.

Perhaps, we shall see. We will live through interesting times, I think.

Slarg232 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:We are at war, we declared a war on terrorism which led us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems Iran is next on the "to invade" list.

Son, what we are in is classified as a Skirmish, we only ever fought in five Wars in our history; Revolutionary, Civil, WW, WWII, and the Vietnam (Not sure about that last one).

I hate to say it, and I know it's tragic in it's entirity, but when only five people die during a fight, that's a very, very good thing in an actual war.

hey boy, Skirmish my ass, we invaded, occupied, and deposed the government of another sovereign nation.

and the 5 are:
war of 1812,
mexican-american,
spanish-american,
WWI
WWII

The civil war was never even authorized by congress, so was that just a skirmish as well then?
Vietnam and Iraq were both Military engagements authorized by Congress.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:We are at war, we declared a war on terrorism which led us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems Iran is next on the "to invade" list.

Son, what we are in is classified as a Skirmish, we only ever fought in five Wars in our history; Revolutionary, Civil, WW, WWII, and the Vietnam (Not sure about that last one).

I hate to say it, and I know it's tragic in it's entirity, but when only five people die during a fight, that's a very, very good thing in an actual war.

hey boy, Skirmish my ass, we invaded, occupied, and deposed the government of another sovereign nation.

and the 5 are:
war of 1812,
mexican-american,
spanish-american,
WWI
WWII

The civil war was never even authorized by congress, so was that just a skirmish as well then?
Vietnam and Iraq were both Military engagements authorized by Congress.

Apparantly.

Also, you are correct; Military Engagements. Notice how this is not the correct spelling of War.

Slarg232 wrote:
So what your saying is that it's perfectly fine to be given a hand out just because your skin color falls on the darker side? That if you met two people, one was a White straight A student, one was a Black straight B student, that you would rather see the straight B student get money solely because he's black?

Well, the scholarships given to minorities usually aren't (probably more like never) given to them solely because they're minorities, usually they're given out to as incentives to pursue degrees in certain vocations, or degrees of any sort, to minority students that demonstrate merit.

And yes, if statistically African Americans suffer several disadvantages in terms of being admitted to, and paying for, college (and they do) I have no problem with that. Honestly, I find the degree to which this issue gets to people to be bemusing, because it necessarily implies that being white places someone at some kind of disadvantage, which isn't true statistically. Maybe being white, and poor, but I have no numbers on that.

Slarg232 wrote:
That is not an arguement based upon race, but rather poor choices (First for doing it, second for bragging about it), and yes, yes you should be fired for that.

Dropping the n-bomb is also a poor word choice, especially if you happen to be not black, or not acting. The point being that context matters when you consider what it is you are saying at given time, and yes, who you are is part of that context.

Slarg232 wrote:
So why is it ok for there to be a Frat of Minority Only, but not a Frat of Whites Only?

Because the white "identity" is largely based on persecuting minorities, while the black identity largely follows from being persecuted. There is a very definite "black culture", but I would struggle to pin down "white culture" as anything other than "not black culture".

I said the word "knight" in class the way Monty Python parodied
the earlier pronunciation that pronounced it "kin-nicht" except
in Monty Python they say "ki-niggit." I had to explain the whole
thing right there.

To the first part:

It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.

I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.

To the second:

Not word choice; Choice in general. Charlie was dumb enough to get involved in something needing to be kept secret and then not keeping said thing a secret.

And again, it is ok for someone to say something if they are a certain skin color. Again, this is discrimination, which is racism, which is wrong. Why should any white person be held accountable for what white people did in the past? I am not my father, you are not yours.

To the third:

Ok, let's take out Black, and specifically make it Hispanic. Still ok? How about Asian? The point is that it is seen as A-OK for each of these to have their own clik, but not the white kids.

Slarg232 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:We are at war, we declared a war on terrorism which led us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and it seems Iran is next on the "to invade" list.

Son, what we are in is classified as a Skirmish, we only ever fought in five Wars in our history; Revolutionary, Civil, WW, WWII, and the Vietnam (Not sure about that last one).

I hate to say it, and I know it's tragic in it's entirity, but when only five people die during a fight, that's a very, very good thing in an actual war.

hey boy, Skirmish my ass, we invaded, occupied, and deposed the government of another sovereign nation.

and the 5 are:
war of 1812,
mexican-american,
spanish-american,
WWI
WWII

The civil war was never even authorized by congress, so was that just a skirmish as well then?
Vietnam and Iraq were both Military engagements authorized by Congress.

Apparantly.

Also, you are correct; Military Engagements. Notice how this is not the correct spelling of War.

well isn't it funny, how you list 3 other "wars" that were not actually wars. But just because congress doesn't want to declare a war, doesn't mean its not a war.

war:"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

I'm not sure of the reason congress doesn't actually want to call it a war, probably just some political correctness. But regardless, its still referred to as the Iraq War. and by no means a skirmish.

skirmish:"a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements "

Slarg232 wrote:To the first part:

It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.

I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.

Race based scholarships are more about economic opportunity than
anything else. More Blacks and Hispanics (by percentage) live in what's
classified by the word poverty than whites. Scholarships are not
supposed to be an advantage over whites in general, but help to
a group that starts out poorer. Just because you help one group doesn't
mean that you're hurting the other. It's not a zero-sum game.It's
recognition that a specific group of people, as a whole, has had to
work harder to get where they are today. Should white poverty ever
become majority percentage, I'd argue the same in the other direction.

Why not just base this on economics? Because the major internal
conflicts in our country that happened was not a working class rebellion
(though there have been a few here and there) but a race based one.

To the second:

Not word choice; Choice in general. Charlie was dumb enough to get involved in something needing to be kept secret and then not keeping said thing a secret.

And again, it is ok for someone to say something if they are a certain skin color. Again, this is discrimination, which is racism, which is wrong. Why should any white person be held accountable for what white people did in the past? I am not my father, you are not yours.

Skipping this one. Let's just say I'm not paying close attention

To the third:

Ok, let's take out Black, and specifically make it Hispanic. Still ok? How about Asian? The point is that it is seen as A-OK for each of these to have their own clik, but not the white kids.

There are white cliques in America, but they tend to be ethnic in nature. So
there are Polish communities, clubs and social groups. There are Russian
communities, clubs, and social groups. There are Irish groups that are
the same.

sirlynchmob wrote:well isn't it funny, how you list 3 other "wars" that were not actually wars. But just because congress doesn't want to declare a war, doesn't mean its not a war.

war:"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

I'm not sure of the reason congress doesn't actually want to call it a war, probably just some political correctness. But regardless, its still referred to as the Iraq War. and by no means a skirmish.

skirmish:"a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements "

So I was wrong, sue me. Unfortunately for you and I, Congress kind of writes the laws and determines what is declared War or not, not us.


I didn't know the War on Obesity was considered a great war, either.....

Slarg232 wrote:


I didn't know the War on Obesity was considered a great war, either.....

It's called Rule number 1: Fatties get eaten.

Don't Forget the War on Drugs.

malfred wrote:

To the second:

Not word choice; Choice in general. Charlie was dumb enough to get involved in something needing to be kept secret and then not keeping said thing a secret.

And again, it is ok for someone to say something if they are a certain skin color. Again, this is discrimination, which is racism, which is wrong. Why should any white person be held accountable for what white people did in the past? I am not my father, you are not yours.

Skipping this one. Let's just say I'm not paying close attention

Totally didn't mean it like that, but there's no saving face now.

Slarg232 wrote:
It's not about Statistics; Figures don't lie, but liers figure. I'm not saying that poor people, black or white, do not need help. But to give a man a scholarship just because of his skin color, certain degree or no, is racism plain and simple. There is simply no denying this. And as we all know, Racism is wrong. Ergo, having a scholarship for race is wrong.

It is about statistics, because racism, as it is used in modern parlance, denotes the application of inherent inferiority or superiority of one race with respect to other races, and the resulting negative consequences. Minority scholarships don't do that, and aren't a negative consequence. Their existence does not disadvantage you for being white.

Slarg232 wrote:
Not word choice; Choice in general. Charlie was dumb enough to get involved in something needing to be kept secret and then not keeping said thing a secret.

And some people who are not black are dumb enough to drop the n-bomb.

Slarg232 wrote:
And again, it is ok for someone to say something if they are a certain skin color. Again, this is discrimination, which is racism, which is wrong. Why should any white person be held accountable for what white people did in the past? I am not my father, you are not yours.

You're being held accountable for what you, yourself, are doing when you drop n-bomb. Its an epithet, and one which is selectively about demeaning black people when its used by a white person. Its not discrimination of the sort you're implying but of the sort imposed by context and social expectations.

Slarg232 wrote:
Ok, let's take out Black, and specifically make it Hispanic. Still ok? How about Asian? The point is that it is seen as A-OK for each of these to have their own clik, but not the white kids.

Sure, because none of those identities exist exclusively because of the persecution of others. Again, "white" is only really meaningful in the sense of being "not black".

Slarg232 wrote:

malfred wrote:

To the second:

Not word choice; Choice in general. Charlie was dumb enough to get involved in something needing to be kept secret and then not keeping said thing a secret.

And again, it is ok for someone to say something if they are a certain skin color. Again, this is discrimination, which is racism, which is wrong. Why should any white person be held accountable for what white people did in the past? I am not my father, you are not yours.

Skipping this one. Let's just say I'm not paying close attention

Totally didn't mean it like that, but there's no saving face now.

I actually don't know what's going on. Not being snarky. I'm jumping
into this part of the discussion out of context as to what you're contending
and I'm too lazy to figure it out.

Slarg232 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:well isn't it funny, how you list 3 other "wars" that were not actually wars. But just because congress doesn't want to declare a war, doesn't mean its not a war.

war:"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

I'm not sure of the reason congress doesn't actually want to call it a war, probably just some political correctness. But regardless, its still referred to as the Iraq War. and by no means a skirmish.

skirmish:"a minor fight in war usually incidental to larger movements "

So I was wrong, sue me. Unfortunately for you and I, Congress kind of writes the laws and determines what is declared War or not, not us.


I didn't know the War on Obesity was considered a great war, either.....

ya you were, keep that in mind before you start calling people son. Its a good thing only congress can declare wars or authorize military actions.

and since we're now just talking about improper uses of the word war: I'll throw in, the war against womens rights.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Unfortunately they are all lightweights and the Presidency has been run by rank amateurs since Barabara Bush was the iron hammer behind Bush Sr. Where is Nixon when you need him?

Eh, I think Clinton and Herbert Walker were above average, with Clinton verging on excellent (he dodged impeachment and still remained quite popular) with Bush II and Obama sitting right around the middle.

Clinton sat while Al Qaeda grew when he had the chance to get him.
He bombed Serbia - Kosova is a shithole now.

Still I'd take him over Obama and any of the Republican candidates.

Frazzled wrote:
Clinton sat while Al Qaeda grew when he had the chance to get him.

So did Bush 1, and Reagan. Hind sight has a way of being 20/20.

Frazzled wrote:
He bombed Serbia - Kosova is a shithole now.

Kosovo has always been a gak hole.

Frazzled wrote:
Still I'd take him over Obama and any of the Republican candidates.

I'm not sure. He had an easier time of it due to a good economy.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Unfortunately they are all lightweights and the Presidency has been run by rank amateurs since Barabara Bush was the iron hammer behind Bush Sr. Where is Nixon when you need him?

Eh, I think Clinton and Herbert Walker were above average, with Clinton verging on excellent (he dodged impeachment and still remained quite popular) with Bush II and Obama sitting right around the middle.

Clinton sat while Al Qaeda grew when he had the chance to get him.

Under Clinton Al Qaada and Bin Laden were specifically targeted in 1995-1996. And Clinton ordered Bin Laden killed in 1998. The CIA failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration

Frazzled wrote:Clinton sat while Al Qaeda grew when he had the chance to get him

This so laughably fact-devoid it's amusing.

Slarg232 wrote:

I am not for the creation of a White Scholarship, btw, as that's just segregating people; white people can only get cash from this ATM, minorities from this one. You didn't accuse, but I figured I would clear that up. Give the poor the help they need. If that means all twenty of the people you help are black, then help the black people. If all twenty are white, help the white people. But don't you dare exlude one of the poorest people there simply because he's a certain skin color.

For those of you who care, there are scholarships available specifically for people of Scottish and Irish descent. Here's an example: http://www.ehow.com/list_6565107_scottish-american-scholarships.html
Though, as noted by Dogma, categories of white and black don't actually have much to do with genetic heritage, dealing instead with issues of identity. So it's entirely possible recipients of Scottish and Irish scholarships could be "black" so long as they can demonstrate the requisite heritage.

Also worth noting I knew a "white" kid in high school who got an African American scholarship because he (or his parents, I can't remember which exactly) immigrated from South Africa--technically making him African American. Worthy of lulz if nothing else.