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.

Oh shuma, how nice. Calling someone who has more ideals than you a child.

halonachos wrote:Oh shuma, how nice. Calling someone who has more ideals than you a child.

Thats it, I'm calling them. Your families worried about you you know.

Shuma, why don't you call frazzled again. Obviously you can't logic your way out of a paper bag Mr."Definitions only apply if they work the way I want them to work".

halonachos wrote:Shuma, why don't you call frazzled again. Obviously you can't logic your way out of a paper bag Mr."Definitions only apply if they work the way I want them to work".

I see halonachos and shuma in a remake of They Live. halonachos is Rowdy Piper and Shuma is Keith David. They have a long extended fight scene, make up, and in the end halonachos is screaming "SHOOT THE ATENNA", ftw and humanity is saved.

Clinton effectively stated that not giving loans to minorities is rascist.

Not loaning money to someone because they are from a minority IS racist.

That is not the same as not giving money to people who can't afford the repayments. Words mean different things in different combination.

So in order to save face, banks gave loans to minorities just because and gave loans to others who were high-risk lenders just because.

Ah, so in fact the problem isn't "well Clinton said that banks are racist" but that banks/institutions got greedy and lent money regardless of the candidates suitability to pay them back.

Minorities are still underpaid

Wait, now they ARE underpaid ? There should be some form of movement to try and correct this, maybe politically ? OR something.

The media hasn't followed its role in over a hundred years.

If FOX news is sponsoring these events then why shouldn't they? Why not if everyone else is going to ignore them?

The media hasn't followed its role in over a hundred years.

You recall what I was saying about irony the other day..

What did McCain do when he went overseas ? Did he address thousands of eager people like Obama did ? Or did he shuffle around as he was politely ignored by every country as they didn't think he was going to win ?

And franly the Republican party is in no position to complain about using the "cult of personality". What the feth was Reagan ?

Even Bush, for his myriad of failings, had a certain something, perhaps not Star quality per se but he was amiable. far more so than Kerry and far more than Mccain.

Same thing, but like Kennedy as well.


You see the thing is this, we mocked europes reaction to Obama recently. In the daily show they called Obama "Europe's American Idol" and now that he's in office no one wants to do anything with him.

Never said that they weren't underpaid, I believe that they should fix that discrepency, but loans exclusive to minorities is still rascist as it is not making equality. Making pay equal to quality no matter what color/creed is equality. According to shuma, that's a childish ideal though, hmmm...

As to clinton's ordeal, that was about the 90's. When did equal rights start coming around? From the 60's to the 90's and still today, minorities have been payed less so thats why more minorities were high-risk lenders and whites weren't. Clinton wanted to fix that so banks gave loans out to everyone despite financial risk. The reason why they gave out so many was to cover the losses from other loans. I'm not going to say that the banks aren't also at fault, but both sides need to take blame.

Yes I do remember what you said about irony, and it does fit and it is funny. We're at a point where parties don't matter anymore, they're both the same thing. We need a thrid party to be elected and soon.

PS: America gurantees equality of oppurtunity not equality of results.

What did McCain do when he went overseas ? Did he address thousands of eager people like Obama did?

By eager people you mean the Germans, right? Of course they love him. Some of us feel he has their interests in minds before ours.

*See his G20 Apology Tour 09 for reference.*

Frazzled wrote:
Massive difference. You bow to a superior. This nation was built by men and women from many nations who left because they would bow to no man. We fought three direct wars so that we would bow to no man (Revolution, 1812, Civil War freeing the slaves). Thats a big difference and a key underpinning of the American Psyche.

But the people who fought those wars are all dead. Now we live in a consumer society where the illusion of freedom is ephemeral at the best of times. I guess you could argue that America's temporal proximity to wars of independence serves to predispose the nation to rebellion, but such an argument literally grows weaker by the day and only holds water in the context of comparison.

halonachos wrote:
Never said that they weren't underpaid, I believe that they should fix that discrepency, but loans exclusive to minorities is still rascist as it is not making equality. Making pay equal to quality no matter what color/creed is equality. According to shuma, that's a childish ideal though, hmmm...

It is childish because it ignores the fact that there is a process that must occur before equality can be realized. You can't just "let there be equality!" from the top of Mount Sinai in order to make it so. People don't work that way.

halonachos wrote:
As to clinton's ordeal, that was about the 90's. When did equal rights start coming around? From the 60's to the 90's and still today, minorities have been payed less so thats why more minorities were high-risk lenders and whites weren't. Clinton wanted to fix that so banks gave loans out to everyone despite financial risk. The reason why they gave out so many was to cover the losses from other loans. I'm not going to say that the banks aren't also at fault, but both sides need to take blame.

No, the reason they gave out so many was the general disregard for risk that resulted from its commoditization. It was political will that permitted such nonsense, but it was not Clinton's political will.

halonachos wrote:
Yes I do remember what you said about irony, and it does fit and it is funny. We're at a point where parties don't matter anymore, they're both the same thing. We need a thrid party to be elected and soon.

PS: America gurantees equality of oppurtunity not equality of results.

Actually, the parties are quite a bit different, you simply fail to understand the differences.

Also, how do distinguish between opportunity and result? Its hardly a clear distinction when applied to the real world.

Also, reds8n what I meant was giving of loans carte blanche because of being a minority.

I'm feeling rather ranty though, so I need to lie down or something.

I will say this though, shuma almost reminds me of one of those people in america who are of the view that america is always at fault and that america is a horrible place. I know that america isn't perfect but I believe it to be the best country out there. I think that everyone should be loyal to their country, not their leaders, but their countries. Their fellow countrymen, their troops, their family, and so on. If you're japanese, love your country. If you're english, love your country. This applies to everyone. That's what america stands for, loving your country and doing your best to make it the best, not apologizing for removing a dictator from a country and telling your troops that they fought for oil and only oil.
Our troops weren't fighting for oil, they were fighting for freedom go ahead and tell a military family that their loved one was only a pawn to gain a resource. Tell them that they weren't righteous, but greedy. Then spit in their faces and kick the military member in the shin. Tell the family that their loved one died in VAIN for no greater good. That the sacrifice did nothing to further freedom in the world.

We stopped genocide in Iraq, we removed a dictator. We are fighting against people who do not value life, people who are a sub-species of mankind. These people are terrorists, they will never stop being terrorists. We can give in and they would still kill us. They hide among women and children, using them as shields while our boys(american, british, whoever else) are busy trying to find out who is the bad guy and who is an innocent person. Their friends are dying, bleeding, losing limbs, losing their innocence of shedding blood. They can lose their minds, but they do it to protect us and to protect freedom. Go ahead and tell them that they are pawns, go ahead and tell them that they do not further freedom. Spit on their losses, their friends, and their family. Just know that you make us look fragmented and weak when you do so, like we don't support our troops. I can see why young men and women are just jumping at the opportunity to serve the country. I wish I was as strong as these young women and men who serve, I couldn't do what they do.

halonachos wrote:Same thing, but like Kennedy as well.

ish, but I think the whole being murdered thing gives him extra "sparkle"

You see the thing is this, we mocked europes reaction to Obama recently. In the daily show they called Obama "Europe's American Idol" and now that he's in office no one wants to do anything with him.

That's lots of press over here that mocks the coverage he gets too, Private Eye did a very funny series of stores about the American people's surpirse reaction when he managed to fit a visit to Washington into his whistlestop tour of the worlds photographers.

And anotehr one about how much nicer the new Britsh King and Queen are.

And it's nothing to do with "doesn't want anyhting to do with him"-- that doesn't even make sense given the coverage you yourself are refering to, does it ? Sure he didn't get the troops he wanted, mainly as most the European nations eitehr (say) they can't afford it £/$/.. what is the Euro symbol anyway ? or politically.

It was "his" plan of what to do with the stimulus package that got agreed. And if the economy picks up and it looks like a military victory they'll come running.

I would point out as well that the UK is sending extra troops though.. we're still with you in the war we should have been fighing all the time.

Never said that they weren't underpaid, I believe that they should fix that discrepency,

[quote=dogma

halonachos wrote:
Yes I do remember what you said about irony, and it does fit and it is funny. We're at a point where parties don't matter anymore, they're both the same thing. We need a thrid party to be elected and soon.

PS: America gurantees equality of oppurtunity not equality of results.

Actually, the parties are quite a bit different, you simply fail to understand the differences.

Also, how do distinguish between opportunity and result? Its hardly a clear distinction when applied to the real world.

I haven't been arguing against fixing differences in pay because of race. This is easy, pay is equal and I'm done. Equality is there.

Giving special attention because of race is still rascist. Equal pay is not giving special attention, its taking it away you see.

We do give equal opportunity, give me an example against this statement and I can give you one for it.

halonachos wrote:
I will say this though, shuma almost reminds me of one of those people in america who are of the view that america is always at fault and that america is a horrible place. I know that america isn't perfect but I believe it to be the best country out there. I think that everyone should be loyal to their country, not their leaders, but their countries. [/quota]

I think he's mean to animals too ! I wouldn't worry when we open up my NWO global warming reeducation camps with Obama's new 5th column army then he'll pay !

I fail to see how criticising ones country is somehow being disloyal ? Surely the fact that you see something as being wrong and want to change it for the better means you care about/for it ?

Or are you now saying that the people down in Texas and elsewhere ( let's keep Mr. Frazzled happy here ) are disloyal for doing what they are doing? You appear to be saying that only some form of criticism is acceptable ( which is essentially right, assassination of blowing up schools, abortion clinics etc isn't clearly) whilst others are, and your division seems to be based entirely upon whether you perceive them as right or left wing.

You must see how that doesn't hold ?

Their fellow countrymen, their troops, their family, and so on. If you're japanese, love your country. If you're english, love your country. This applies to everyone. That's what america stands for, loving your country and doing your best to make it the best, not apologizing for removing a dictator from a country and telling your troops that they fought for oil and only oil.
Our troops weren't fighting for oil, they were fighting for freedom go ahead and tell a military family that their loved one was only a pawn to gain a resource. Tell them that they weren't righteous, but greedy. Then spit in their faces and kick the military member in the shin. Tell the family that their loved one died in VAIN for no greater good. That the sacrifice did nothing to further freedom in the world.

I don't think people are saying that. And by your own argument America then doesn't stand or anything that any other country does either.

And to be blunt your troops ( and ours before you go off on one) were fighting because they were ordered to. Everything else is rhetoric and somewhat sappy emotivism.

We stopped genocide in Iraq, we removed a dictator. We are fighting against people who do not value life, people who are a sub-species of mankind. These people are terrorists, they will never stop being terrorists. We can give in and they would still kill us. They hide among women and children, using them as shields while our boys(american, british, whoever else) are busy trying to find out who is the bad guy and who is an innocent person. Their friends are dying, bleeding, losing limbs, losing their innocence of shedding blood. They can lose their minds, but they do it to protect us and to protect freedom. Go ahead and tell them that they are pawns, go ahead and tell them that they do not further freedom. Spit on their losses, their friends, and their family. Just know that you make us look fragmented and weak when you do so, like we don't support our troops. I can see why young men and women are just jumping at the opportunity to serve the country. I wish I was as strong as these young women and men who serve, I couldn't do what they do.

Again I'm afraid you're not really making an argument as such here. Yes soldiers are brave. Yes terrorists are evil.

But... terrorists are evil because ?

..Because they go into foreign countries and kill people whose way of life they disagree with.

Does that sound familiar at all ? LIke from a lot of countries perspective what we're doing ?

halonachos wrote:Also, reds8n what I meant was giving of loans carte blanche because of being a minority.

I'm feeling rather ranty though, so I need to lie down or something.

I will say this though, shuma almost reminds me of one of those people in america who are of the view that america is always at fault and that america is a horrible place. I know that america isn't perfect but I believe it to be the best country out there.

Sadly such a qualitative judgment is completely irrelevant to any kind of policy debate.

halonachos wrote:
I think that everyone should be loyal to their country, not their leaders, but their countries. Their fellow countrymen, their troops, their family, and so on. If you're japanese, love your country. If you're english, love your country. This applies to everyone. That's what america stands for, loving your country and doing your best to make it the best, not apologizing for removing a dictator from a country and telling your troops that they fought for oil and only oil.

But that is what they fought for. Everything else is simply an attempt at propaganda. Post-Saddam Iraq is not going to be notably different from Saddam's Iraq.

halonachos wrote:
Our troops weren't fighting for oil, they were fighting for freedom go ahead and tell a military family that their loved one was only a pawn to gain a resource. Tell them that they weren't righteous, but greedy. Then spit in their faces and kick the military member in the shin. Tell the family that their loved one died in VAIN for no greater good. That the sacrifice did nothing to further freedom in the world.

It furthered the illusion of freedom, which is useful in a sense, but irrelevant to any kind of serious conversation about what actually transpired with respect to the war. Illusions are relevant insofar as they are compulsive, but they are still just illusions. The real reason for the war, from a policy standpoint had nothing at all to do with furthering American values except in the sense that low oil prices serve to enable American values.

halonachos wrote:
We stopped genocide in Iraq, we removed a dictator.

Actually, we allowed genocide to occur in Iraq, and then decided to utilize the fact that it had happened as a pretense to invasion. The whole dictator thing? Yeah, the negative aspects of living under a dictator are highly overstated.

halonachos wrote:
We are fighting against people who do not value life, people who are a sub-species of mankind.

No, they very clearly do value life. That's why they kill other people to ensure happiness in theirs. Not unlike our soldiers who went to Iraq...

halonachos wrote:
These people are terrorists, they will never stop being terrorists. We can give in and they would still kill us.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Also, it should be pointed out that the Iraqis gave in a long time ago, and we're still killing them. Funny thing that.

halonachos wrote:
They hide among women and children, using them as shields while our boys(american, british, whoever else) are busy trying to find out who is the bad guy and who is an innocent person. Their friends are dying, bleeding, losing limbs, losing their innocence of shedding blood. They can lose their minds, but they do it to protect us and to protect freedom. Go ahead and tell them that they are pawns, go ahead and tell them that they do not further freedom. Spit on their losses, their friends, and their family.

We're all pawns in some sense. That's what happens when you live in society. You're taking unnecessary offense to what are essentially semantic differences with respect to considering a given event.

halonachos wrote:
Just know that you make us look fragmented and weak when you do so, like we don't support our troops. I can see why young men and women are just jumping at the opportunity to serve the country. I wish I was as strong as these young women and men who serve, I couldn't do what they do.

Interesting. Defend freedom, and then advocate unity. What exactly do you hope to prove through self-contradiction?

No, terrorists are evil because they have no regards or qualms about who they kill. They don't value life and that makes them evil and even sub-human.

You don't criticize your country, you criticize the way it is run and who runs it. You improve your country by doing so. Like cancer; you don't insult and curse the patient, you curse and cure the cancer.

Freedom fighters don't kill everyone because they exist. Terrorists blow themselves up no matter who is around(children, women, innocent people). So, I don't see our soldiers anything close to terrorists, shame on you for even comparing them.

If the war was over oil, then why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia or perhaps a place with more oil than Iraq? Oh and gas prices jumped during the war, so either we didn't fight for oil, or we just got so much we needed to raise prices to stop from buying it all.

The Iraqi military gave in, not radical islamofascists(terrorists) who still enter the country.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Cut the crap. I'm pretty sure people in Iraq who have had to leave their homes and lose their lives because of a "freedom fighters" actions will disagree with you.

halonachos wrote:

The parties may be different in social matters, but only slightly. Over the years we have seen no different social politics enacted by either side. Both sides conform to the middle after winning. They don't really care as long as they get into office.

Yeah, because ideology is good for motivating people, but terrible for making decisions. What you're describing is healthy political process

halonachos wrote:
Opportunity and results can be seen. Everyone has the opportunity to an education, the result is that some take it seriously while others don't.

Everyone has the opportunity to succeed, the reult is that some don't, others succeed minimally, and others succeed more than normal.

Both of those statements are false when applied within the context of a social environment.

I also fail to see how freedom and unity are contradictory my firend. Perhaps this is some european ideal.

try me dogma, I love philosophy and arguing. As seen from previous comments.

halonachos wrote:No, terrorists are evil because they have no regards or qualms about who they kill. They don't value life and that makes them evil and even sub-human.

Terrorist care about who they kill. They only want to kill people that will further their cause. It just so happens that such a category includes civilians.

halonachos wrote:
You don't criticize your country, you criticize the way it is run and who runs it. You improve your country by doing so. Like cancer; you don't insult and curse the patient, you curse and cure the cancer.

Your operating under the pretense that a country is something other than a semantic concept. The USA is only a real place because we agree that its a real place.

halonachos wrote:
Freedom fighters don't kill everyone because they exist. Terrorists blow themselves up no matter who is around(children, women, innocent people). So, I don't see our soldiers anything close to terrorists, shame on you for even comparing them.

Terror is a weapon of war. We simply frown upon using it in polite society, so we make up these little semantic games that allow us to call it something other than what it is. They are fun, I admit, but they are also just games.

Incidentally, not all terrorists are suicide bombers.

halonachos wrote:
If the war was over oil, then why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia or perhaps a place with more oil than Iraq? Oh and gas prices jumped during the war, so either we didn't fight for oil, or we just got so much we needed to raise prices to stop from buying it all.

Because the Saudis are both our allies, and possessed of a stable succession system.

Also, gas prices jumped because during the conflict it was anticipated that the supply of oil would contract, so speculators bought large oil futures. Of course, the supply didn't contract, but the price went up due to the excess demand. The Bush administration largely underestimated the effects of this price spike; choosing to focus on the long-term stability of the Persian Gulf due to their incorrect belief that a democracy is more intrinsically stable than any other form of government.

halonachos wrote:
The Iraqi military gave in, not radical islamofascists(terrorists) who still enter the country.

You mean Iraqi citizens who oppose the fact that America is occupying their nation? Most of the terrorists in Iraq are not foreign nationals.

halonachos wrote:We stopped genocide in Iraq, we removed a dictator. We are fighting against people who do not value life, people who are a sub-species of mankind. These people are terrorists, they will never stop being terrorists.

With an attitude like that, you might as well just advocate nuking the whole site. From orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

I'm amazed at how far this thread has gone off the tracks. I don't know why, but it always amazes me how bizzare these posts can become.

halonachos wrote:No, terrorists are evil because they have no regards or qualms about who they kill. They don't value life and that makes them evil and even sub-human.

Tell me more about how giving disease infested blankets to natives makes us better.

Let us also not get confused. Terrorists do care about who they kill, they just don't distinguish between military and civilian. It isn't the same thing.

halonachos wrote:I also fail to see how freedom and unity are contradictory my firend. Perhaps this is some european ideal.

They aren't insofar as the person chooses to remain consistent with the party line. However, you clearly have a different understanding of choice than most people do. You do not choose your emotions, and unity only exists as a result of emotion.

barlio wrote:

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Cut the crap. I'm pretty sure people in Iraq who have had to leave their homes and lose their lives because of a "freedom fighters" actions will disagree with you.

That really depends on which militia they side with and how alsadir is feeling. It's really not that cut and dry. No one sides with AQ in Iraq, but they are a tiny fraction of the forces we're fighting there.

Actually, most of the terrorists in Iraq are foreign nationals from syria, iran, and egypt. Terrorists have killed shiites and sunnis, military and civilian. They have no regard for human life, those who aren;t suicide bombers will fight, throw down their guns and run with the crowd to blend in. Again sacrificing innocent lives. Look at hamas and their placement of missiles in civilian areas. They sure do care about human life.

halonachos wrote:I also fail to see how freedom and unity are contradictory my firend. Perhaps this is some european ideal.

Don't be daft, nothing's come out of Europe remember ! Except war obviously.

It's a little known fact that every single good thing in the wolrd was invented in America.

Under a Republican Govt.

You hear otherwise it's just LIberal propaganda.

Oh man, I am really being ganged up here. How can I possibly argue against all of these points in an orderly fashion.

I think my previous post answered some so I just need to see the responses to that post.

reds8n wrote:

halonachos wrote:I also fail to see how freedom and unity are contradictory my firend. Perhaps this is some european ideal.

Don't be daft, nothing's come out of Europe remember ! Except war obviously.

It's a little known fact that every single good thing in the wolrd was invented in America.

Under a Republican Govt.

You hear otherwise it's just LIberal propaganda.

Now you know the truth and have been enlightened!

Remember that europe has had more time to do things than america has. In that time they invented things like the steam engine, words, the bible, under garments. You've also had a lot more wars that have done nothing though. Like the Hundred years war for example, that land grab worked out fantastically.