Fascism Alive and Well in 2012


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 788 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Smarnil le couard wrote:
Well, who is being inflammatory? Weren't you the one to imply that I was probably suffering from a mental disorder ?

The "liberalism is a mental disease" meme is a common one on far-right websites, like Newsmax and American Thinker, among others. It's also common on right-wing talk radio, which permeates the AM (MW) bands all over the US.

Aretas refers to such sources as though they were impartial purveyors of "real" news.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:


Or, of course, I could simply be dismissing facts that don't fit my preconception.

Maybe you are. In all fairness, maybe you're not.

My point is that there's not any reason to give this thread gravitas. Noone is going to concede validity of anything they don't hold faith in, whether it's 'Whitey is the devil!' or 'America is god's gift to the unworthy rest of the world!' or 'My insight is keener than yours!'.

There's people who just don't like America (perhaps due to envy, misinformation, or just maybe valid reasons). There's those who do. Maybe they're misinformed about the worst parts of US history. Maybe they're fully aware of the flaws and love the country anyway. Those two will never see eye to eye, not in this thread anyway.

Then there's those who feel enlightened beyond their peers and that those peers are just aching to hear their superior opinions.

While I think there's a notable disparity between first two types of posters (in the numerical favor of the first), I think the third type are the most common of all.


deusvult wrote:

Re: "Facts"

The list of nobel laureates is pretty easy to verify. And, yes, it's overwhelmingly favoring American scientists.

What of it?

Well, the implication is that a rationed/socialized medical establishment doesn't generate the progress that the US system has. Because if they did, there'd be a lot more recognition to non-US developed breakthroughs, right?

If you don't believe that, then there's little to no reason to cite sources about effectiveness or access to preventative care. Dismissing 'facts' that don't fit one's preconceptions is as natural as breathing, and equally hard not to do.

Well, all facts always need to be checked. Ever. They are what makes a difference between an opinion (even a cherished one) and... Truth? Reality ?

Never checking any facts and throwing around opinions is a pretty useless pastime, I give you that. I try not to.

According to Nobel archives, 90 of the Nobel prizes laureates came from the USA, on a total of 197. That's an impressive account, more than any other individual country, and nobody can claim that the USA isn't a great nation for research.

But...

1) to compare comparable things, if you aggregate the laureates coming from the European Union countries (a political entity of roughly equal population), the diffrence becomes negligible.
2) that is counting laureates, not prizes. That means that if three researchers worked together on the same topic and shared a prize, you are counting them three times. If you compute fractions of prizes (already done in the archives), USA got 41.16 prizes on 102, a still impressive number (equaled by UE "socialist" researchers).
3) it doesn't necessarily translate into a better health system, not when 14-15 % of the population is uninsured (source : CDC).

So, yes the USA researchers are great guys, no doubt on that. Is it exceptional ? No, not really. And anyway, it doesn't add anything to the current topic, which was about the supposedly exceptional character of the USA putting them above others on a qualitative sense.

PS : for the record, the "especially if you are rich and healthy" was meant as a joke. It's better to be ANYWHERE, so no need to get into a torque about that.


Interesting thoughts all around. And I would like to thank my well read rivals, Aretas and to a lesser extent deusvult, for their loquacious candor, although sources would be nice. I have noticed the American bent in the last nobels for scientific categories, and I have never thought much of it, as other peoples from other countries and ethnic groups are represented well in other categories. While there is a good chance that preconceived notions are coloring out perceptions, I would appreciate a deeper look. Regarding cancer, I think that the great work done on this disease in this country is a stellar example of American exceptionalism brought on by the astonishing amount of lives list to complications of this disease due to our countries history with tobacco and tobacco products.


Also, red porcupine, had no idea you were German. Thanks for a view from without, as it were.

Shadow Lodge

Steven Tindall wrote:
IF the native peoples had the north American continent for as long as they did. Which from my remembrance was estimated at around 10,000 years. They didn't do a whole lot with the place. We as a nation with only 400 years under our belts have touched outer space and have advanced in ways they could never have dreamed.

Need I point out that in that same 10,000 years, white men in Europe also failed to get to outer space? As did any color of man living on any continent.


Aretas wrote:


Do you believe the US should have bombed the Serbs in Kosovo?
Do you believe the US should have bombed the Serbs in Bosnia?

Am only up to this post, but wanted to add my votes before I finish:

No and no.

EDIT: What Citizen Cummins said.


RedPorcupine wrote:


First off: I´d guess that none of the people arguing with/against you are muslims, have ties to the Hamas, Hisbollah, communist/ socialist underground, whatever. No propaganda.

[Raises hand]

Lifelong American communist. Am not mentally disordered. Even have a doctor's note saying so.


deusvult wrote:

Then there's those who feel enlightened beyond their peers and that those peers are just aching to hear their superior opinions.

While I think there's a notable disparity between first two types of posters (in the numerical favor of the first), I think the third type are the most common of all.

All those who disagree with Grandfather Pei Thought will pay, mofo's!


Aretas wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Lakhdar-Boumediene

(Anyone interested in a detailed account on what happened should read)

Thanks for the link, but... The guy was still illegally detained for years in Guantanamo, before all charges were dropped by your judicial system. Whatever he was suspected of isn't relevant.

Torture and whimsical detainment are still an abomination, which you should abjure for the sake of principles.

Your SCOTUS denounced TWICE Guantanamo, in 2006 and 2008 (the later being the Boumediene case), without any result. The United Nations did too, on the basis that there is no such thing as an "ennemy combatant" status in international law, and that prisoners should either fall under civilian juridiction or be eligible to Geneva Convention status.

What do you need more ?

I really worry for you (not you personnally, the USA). You must understand that freedoms and public rights can be destroyed in very small steps, and that it's a steep slide to climb back. Embracing such blatant violations of human rights isn't a safe thing to do. Governments and police agencies tends to get quickly addicted to such shortcuts ("so tedious to check if he is really guilty... Just zap him, who cares!").


Smarnil le couard wrote:

I wasn't the one to give a false number, remember ? (could have been a typo, a zero added) If you can't scroll up this page to check who said what, I don't know what to say to you.

I was the one that give incorrect numbers, there was "only" 3000 deads in the pinochet dictadure.

30000 was the number of tortured and unjustify jailed people.

But I corrected the numbers in a past post.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
Aretas wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Lakhdar-Boumediene

(Anyone interested in a detailed account on what happened should read)

Thanks for the link, but... The guy was still illegally detained for years in Guantanamo, before all charges were dropped by your judicial system. Whatever he was suspected of isn't relevant.

Torture and whimsical detainment are still an abomination, which you should abjure for the sake of principles.

Your SCOTUS denounced TWICE Guantanamo, in 2006 and 2008 (the later being the Boumediene case), without any result. The United Nations did too, on the basis that there is no such thing as an "ennemy combatant" status in international law, and that prisoners should either fall under civilian juridiction or be eligible to Geneva Convention status.

and do not forget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Couso

PS: I do not like to quote wikipedia, but the other links I know are in spanish, but if you do not mind

http://www.abc.es/20110402/espana/rc-tanque-disparo-couso-veia-201104020105 .html


Just so people don't think I only hate America.

Sovereign Court

Smarnil le couard wrote:


Well, all facts always need to be checked. Ever. They are what makes a difference between an opinion (even a cherished one) and... Truth? Reality ?

If we were actually researching the topic you'd be right.

We're a gaggle of webbies, trolls, and in one special case, anklebiters that are collectively talking out of our nether regions.

I'd be surprised if a single one of us were actually qualified to speak knowledgably on the subject.

Let's take my example, so I'm not calling anyone out. I find the numbers that 'prove' that people in the US have better access to preventative care and cancer survival rates supports my preconceived idea that socialized (rationed) medicine is a fundamentally flawed notion. I simply don't care where the numbers come from, I LIKE them. To me, whether they come from a right wing web site or the CDC is irrelevant. They're gospel.

Let's say I thought otherwise and believe pay-as-you-go medical care is a fundamentally inhumane way to go about things. If I see the same numbers, attacking the source is the way to rationalize the threat to my preconceptions. "They're obviously from the far-right! And if that's the case, they're obviously invalid!"

Spin it around, and we're talking about nearly everyone in the thread. (leaving the lack of an absolute in there to make room for YOU) Excepting of course the anklebiters and trolls who are just having a laugh.


Oh, no, no, Citizen Deusvult. Just because I am having a laugh doesn't mean I am just having a laugh.

EDIT: Only to just.


deusvult wrote:
Let's say I thought otherwise and believe pay-as-you-go medical care is a fundamentally inhumane way to go about things. If I see the same numbers, attacking the source is the way to rationalize the threat to my preconceptions. "They're obviously from the far-right! And if that's the case, they're obviously invalid!"

Obviously? No. But you would have a good reason to think they may be biased. That is why I try to get sources from reputed searchers and universities commited to peer-reviews processes and high methodological standards and not from right-wing or left-wing think tanks.

I agree with you, confirmation bias is a real problem, but it does not mean there is no objective way to screen between sources.


So, did we get sources on the list of medical facts yet?


deusvult wrote:

If we were actually researching the topic you'd be right.

We're a gaggle of webbies, trolls, and in one special case, anklebiters that are collectively talking out of our nether regions.

I'd be surprised if a single one of us were actually qualified to speak knowledgably on the subject.

Let's take my example, so I'm not calling anyone out. I find the numbers that 'prove' that people in the US have better access to preventative care and cancer survival rates supports my preconceived idea that socialized (rationed) medicine is a fundamentally flawed notion. I simply don't care where the numbers come from, I LIKE them. To me, whether they come from a right wing web site or the CDC is irrelevant. They're gospel.

Let's say I thought otherwise and believe pay-as-you-go medical care is a fundamentally inhumane way to go about things. If I see the same numbers, attacking the source is the way to rationalize the threat to my preconceptions. "They're obviously from the far-right! And if that's the case, they're obviously invalid!"

Spin it around, and we're talking about nearly everyone in the thread. (leaving the lack of an absolute in there to make room for YOU) Excepting of course the anklebiters and trolls who are just having a laugh.

And now I've gone back and re-read all of my posts in this thread and I think your singling me out is bullshiznit. Half of my posts have been jokes, sure, but my "serious" contributions haven't been any more out-of-my-assish than anyone else's.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


And now I've gone back and re-read all of my posts in this thread and I think your singling me out is bullshiznit. Half of my posts have been jokes, sure, but my "serious" contributions haven't been any more out-of-my-assish than anyone else's.

You know, I honestly expected you to have been touched by being the only troll to have gotten to get me sufficiently to rate a mention.

But in full disclosure, ever since the original poster said 'oh, never mind, the Arizona thing isn't actually all that it seemed to be at first...' I haven't been following the thread too closely. I was just going by your barbs that managed to leave an impression ;)


You're right, I should be pleased.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

[Raises hand]

Lifelong American communist. Am not mentally disordered. Even have a doctor's note saying so.

Ah. Suspected you might be serious about THAT. But you´re so obvious about it...

I´d call it hopeless idealism;). My lady-love also suffers from it. I think much of it is Weltschmerz, which is what i have. Up the international !?


Sourcing never hurt anyone, deusvult. In a conversation such as this one, it can only help.

deusvult wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:


Well, all facts always need to be checked. Ever. They are what makes a difference between an opinion (even a cherished one) and... Truth? Reality ?

If we were actually researching the topic you'd be right.

We're a gaggle of webbies, trolls, and in one special case, anklebiters that are collectively talking out of our nether regions.

I'd be surprised if a single one of us were actually qualified to speak knowledgably on the subject.

Let's take my example, so I'm not calling anyone out. I find the numbers that 'prove' that people in the US have better access to preventative care and cancer survival rates supports my preconceived idea that socialized (rationed) medicine is a fundamentally flawed notion. I simply don't care where the numbers come from, I LIKE them. To me, whether they come from a right wing web site or the CDC is irrelevant. They're gospel.

Let's say I thought otherwise and believe pay-as-you-go medical care is a fundamentally inhumane way to go about things. If I see the same numbers, attacking the source is the way to rationalize the threat to my preconceptions. "They're obviously from the far-right! And if that's the case, they're obviously invalid!"

Spin it around, and we're talking about nearly everyone in the thread. (leaving the lack of an absolute in there to make room for YOU) Excepting of course the anklebiters and trolls who are just having a laugh.


RedPorcupine wrote:

Ah. Suspected you might be serious about THAT. But you´re so obvious about it...

I´d call it hopeless idealism;). My lady-love also suffers from it. I think much of it is Weltschmerz, which is what i have. Up the international !?

Your lady-love sounds hawt!!


- Man i tell you she is cool she is RED HOT
I mean she is steamin´ -

lending Phil Lynott´s words

She´s also perfectly able to watch out for herself and recently only just refrained from breaking some fingers pawing her, if you get my drift, Comrade...;).


RedPorcupine wrote:

- Man i tell you she is cool she is RED HOT

I mean she is steamin´ -

lending Phil Lynott´s words

She´s also perfectly able to watch out for herself and recently only just refrained from breaking some fingers pawing her, if you get my drift, Comrade...;

Comrade Anklebiter never paws; he pets--and only when it's welcome!

Liberty's Edge

Aretas wrote:

I'm trying to figure out your angle. If you answer those questions honestly I'll get a good idea.

Since you are refusing to answer the questions he asked you above, why do you believe that he should answer yours?

Regarding the article in the Standard, it appears to boil down to asserting that Boumediene may have known people involved in terrorism and may have planned to travel to Afganistan. There doesn't seem to be anything more to it even according to them. The judge who had access to the files believed that there wasn't any convincing evidence against him. What more is there to say?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, I found the sources for the "10 facts".

The author is Scott W. Atlas, from the Hoover institution. From what I can gather from their website, the institution is a neoliberal think tank associated with the Standford University. The link between the institute and Standford is not clearly stated, but it seems the Institude is independantly funded through private donation.

Here is the institution mission statement.

Mission statement wrote:

Now more than five decades old, Herbert Hoover's 1959 statement to the Board of Trustees of Stanford University on the purpose and scope of the Hoover Institution continues to guide and define its mission in the twenty-first century:

"This Institution supports the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights and its method of representative government. Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise from which springs initiative and ingenuity.... Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves.... The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man's endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life. This Institution is not, and must not be, a mere library. But with these purposes as its goal, the Institution itself must constantly and dynamically point the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards of the American system."

The principles of individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and representative government were fundamental to the vision of the Institution's founder. By collecting knowledge, generating ideas, and disseminating both, the Institution seeks to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals.

The analysis was published under the tutelage of the NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis.) Here is the descriptive text from their webpage:

About the NCPA wrote:

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.

We bring together the best and brightest minds to tackle the country's most difficult public policy problems — in health care, taxes, retirement, small business, and the environment. In doing so, we propose reforms that liberate consumers, workers, entrepreneurs and the power of the marketplace.

I like the fact that they state they are "nonpartisan" then say their goal is to promote a neoliberal and deregulated free market in the next sentance.

I will let you draw your own conclusions about the credibility of the sources.


Thank you mongoose.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
Aretas wrote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Lakhdar-Boumediene

(Anyone interested in a detailed account on what happened should read)

Why do you put words in my mouth "American God given right to domination" You obviously have an agenda.

Let me ask you a question in regards to the United States and its so called goals of imperialism.

Do you believe the US should have bombed the Serbs in Kosovo?
Do you believe the US should have bombed the Serbs in Bosnia?

I'm trying to figure out your angle. If you answer those questions honestly I'll get a good idea.

Hidden agenda? Please...

May I observe that you failed to answer my questions about what facts let you think that the USA are exceptional / above laws and morals / superior (take your pick) ?

Given this lack of answers, and the fact that you pointed me to a neocon blog, let me assume that you are a neocon and thus believe in the divine mandate of the USA. It's not so wild an assumption : feel free to contradict me, but THEN explain why you believe in the USA's exceptionalism.

As I'm in a joyous mood, I will be more cooperative than you and answer your questions : in former Yugoslavia, as far as I know, the USA hadn't any hidden agenda and acted only to stop the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians within a mandate given by the United Nations. So yes, it was both globally warranted and legally right.

You know, imperialism isn't a dirty word. It's quite ridiculous to deny that the USA don't try to promote its interests all around the world, by force if necessary. Just listen to the political discourse : nothing is covert in that.

I believe I have nailed down your angle in this whole mess in regards to Amercican foreign policy.

You hate America. At the same time you agree with American foreign policy on their intervention in the Balkans. (Bosnia & Kosovo)

In my learned opinion the US should have stayed out of both conflicts. In addition to that I believe we bombed the wrong combatants in both conflicts.

So my conclusion on your angle is this. Its very much akin to the opinions expressed by the French nationals of Arab decent I've had the pleasure to meet and mentioned earlier. America is evil and corrupt BUT when they are bombing non Arabs or non Muslims they support them 100%.
Thats all for now, got to get back to work and make more money to pay more taxes to fund the American war machine and imperialism that I sooooo greatly benefit from. (yea right) ; )

Peace!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:


You hate America.

If you think that if someone do not Love US automaticaly hate the US then you need to sit down for a while and meditate the meaning of the word hate.

PS: is really hard to not be a troll in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:

I believe I have nailed down your angle in this whole mess in regards to Amercican foreign policy.

You hate America. At the same time you agree with American foreign policy on their intervention in the Balkans. (Bosnia & Kosovo)

In my learned opinion the US should have stayed out of both conflicts. In addition to that I believe we bombed the wrong combatants in both conflicts.

So my conclusion on your angle is this. Its very much akin to the opinions expressed by the French nationals of Arab decent I've had the pleasure to meet and mentioned earlier. America is evil and corrupt BUT when they are bombing non Arabs or non Muslims they support them 100%.
Thats all for now, got to get back to work and make more money to pay more taxes to fund the American war machine and imperialism that I sooooo greatly benefit from. (yea right) ; )

I suspect your understanding of his angle has more to do with your own biases than anything Smarnil has said.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It's almost like Aretas believes people can only have blanket likes and dislikes of an entity, rather than being capable of liking some aspects and disliking others.

Please correct me if this is not the case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
Thats all for now, got to get back to work and make more money to pay more taxes to fund the American war machine and imperialism that I sooooo greatly benefit from. (yea right) ; )

The problem is that you are mostly right when you say you are not benefiting from this situation. In a way, you are exploited by those very few in your country that get to be insanely rich from this situation.

The fact is that gouvernemental regulation and ethical rules on your "free" market (boo socialism!) would impair them. They could no longer use the militaro-industrial complex in order to exploit masses of poor people around the world and sell you back the crap they produce cheaply with no regard to human life, ecology and basic decency to get even richer.

And when, internaly, their insane speculations will produce yet another crash, you'll still be there to pay the bill for them, loosing your house yet again.

But don't fear. Those people in other countries, pissed off, will soon try yet another terrorist attack on your sacred soil, so your government will have a good reason to retaliate on those "evil" persons, getting the economy working again, getting more ressources from foreign countries, and getting the rich people happy because they will resume selling you their crap yet again.

Until the next crash..

But, hey, who said "freedom" was to be free?

And I don't hate people from the USA, I hate the system, and I am sad that the great values your country was founded on are now being used against its own citizen it that way by cheap manipulation tactics equating "freedom" with "neoliberalism", something that did not exist when your founding fathers wrote the constitution.

I am sad that the "no taxation withouth representation" is but dead, burried by in the rubbles the lobbies working for the rich 1% leave behind when pressuring your government, and when this same 1% is controlling most of the information you get and financing "research" groups like the ones you quote.

Your country have great principles, but their institutional implementation is somewhat (to put it mildly) not to par.

Canada is not really better, mind you. The rich 1% from my country have their own tactics. And they are learning from, and teaching to, your rich 1%.

You see, the problem is that these rich 1% are only patriots when it suits them, and their real nationality is neither American or Canadian - they learned more quickly than ourselves that your only nationality is with people of a common interrest.

And, please, keep in mind I'm a democrat, and that I don't want communism. I'm only pleading for a real democacy, a real justice, respect and decency for the value of human lives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CunningMongoose wrote:
And I don't hate people from the USA, I hate the system, and I am sad that the great values your country was founded on are now being used against its own citizen it that way by cheap manipulation tactics equating "freedom" with "neoliberalism", something that did not exist when your founding fathers wrote the constitution.

Great values? What were they? Owning other human beings? Killing people and stealing the lands? Purposefully infecting them with diseases? There is no great values in anything about the US.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:


I believe I have nailed down your angle in this whole mess in regards to Amercican foreign policy.

You hate America. At the same time you agree with American foreign policy on their intervention in the Balkans. (Bosnia & Kosovo)

In my learned opinion the US should have stayed out of both conflicts. In addition to that I...

I also served 7 years active duty, 1999-2006 (I was even already on a deployment overseas on Sep. 11th and was redirected to Afghanistan).

If you disagree with my beliefs, by your logic, you hate the troops.

Do you hate the troops?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Aretas wrote:

I believe I have nailed down your angle in this whole mess in regards to Amercican foreign policy.

You hate America.

Aaaaaand anything else any poster might have said is wholly invalidated with one succinct, dismissive "rebuttal." Stellar.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
CunningMongoose wrote:
And I don't hate people from the USA, I hate the system
Great values? What were they?

A) It's difficult to keep the 1% from running things no matter what system one chooses.

B) Come now, even at the time those values were not shared by all of the founders, notably slavery. In any event, those were not the values that we aspire to, regardless of the problems we've had in attaining them from time to time.


Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
pres man wrote:
CunningMongoose wrote:
And I don't hate people from the USA, I hate the system
Great values? What were they?

A) It's difficult to keep the 1% from running things no matter what system one chooses.

B) Come now, even at the time those values were not shared by all of the founders, notably slavery. In any event, those were not the values that we aspire to, regardless of the problems we've had in attaining them from time to time.

Not shared? Depends on your definition of shared is I guess. I mean if you are able to casually disregard the suffering of others because it is inconvenient for you to attempt to stop it, I guess you can call that not sharing it, but I might not.


Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
pres man wrote:
CunningMongoose wrote:
And I don't hate people from the USA, I hate the system
Great values? What were they?

A) It's difficult to keep the 1% from running things no matter what system one chooses.

B) Come now, even at the time those values were not shared by all of the founders, notably slavery. In any event, those were not the values that we aspire to, regardless of the problems we've had in attaining them from time to time.

A) I strongly suspect neoliberal economy and representative democracy are a part of the problem. Regulated capitalism and deliberative democracy (Rawls, Habermas) may make it less difficult, at the very least. I thinks it's false to say the system does not make a difference.

B) I think you must judge a value by what it makes possible, not by the fact some people failed to make the best out of them or disregarded them. I think America has a lot of great values embeded in its constitution. The contingent fact people did not always respect them is certainly not an argument to reject them now or to say they lack importance. I certainly want to live in a country were, say, freedom of speech is valued and embeded in the constitution, even if practically it is not respected, than to live in a country were it is not respected AND it is not embeded in the constitution, restraining me from taking legal action against my own political institutions.


CunningMongoose wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Thats all for now, got to get back to work and make more money to pay more taxes to fund the American war machine and imperialism that I sooooo greatly benefit from. (yea right) ; )

The problem is that you are mostly right when you say you are not benefiting from this situation. In a way, you are exploited by those very few in your country that get to be insanely rich from this situation.

The fact is that gouvernemental regulation and ethical rules on your "free" market (boo socialism!) would impair them. They could no longer use the militaro-industrial complex in order to exploit masses of poor people around the world and sell you back the crap they produce cheaply with no regard to human life, ecology and basic decency to get even richer.

And when, internaly, their insane speculations will produce yet another crash, you'll still be there to pay the bill for them, loosing your house yet again.

But don't fear. Those people in other countries, pissed off, will soon try yet another terrorist attack on your sacred soil, so your government will have a good reason to retaliate on those "evil" persons, getting the economy working again, getting more ressources from foreign countries, and getting the rich people happy because they will resume selling you their crap yet again.

Until the next crash..

But, hey, who said "freedom" was to be free?

And I don't hate people from the USA, I hate the system, and I am sad that the great values your country was founded on are now being used against its own citizen it that way by cheap manipulation tactics equating "freedom" with "neoliberalism", something that did not exist when your founding fathers wrote the constitution.

I am sad that the "no taxation withouth representation" is but dead, burried by in the rubbles the lobbies working for the rich 1% leave behind when pressuring your government, and when this same 1% is controlling most of the information you get and financing "research" groups like the ones you quote.

Your...

I like what your saying.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

It's almost like Aretas believes people can only have blanket likes and dislikes of an entity, rather than being capable of liking some aspects and disliking others.

Please correct me if this is not the case.

Not the case TriOmega. I believe the majority of us are complex political beings. The others are ideologues with an agenda to push.


Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:


I believe I have nailed down your angle in this whole mess in regards to Amercican foreign policy.

You hate America. At the same time you agree with American foreign policy on their intervention in the Balkans. (Bosnia & Kosovo)

In my learned opinion the US should have stayed out of both conflicts. In addition to that I...

I also served 7 years active duty, 1999-2006 (I was even already on a deployment overseas on Sep. 11th and was redirected to Afghanistan).

If you disagree with my beliefs, by your logic, you hate the troops.

Do you hate the troops?

I appreciate your service! I do not hate the troops, I support them 100%. A lot of my buddys are rolling back from Afghanistan. What are your beliefs? I didn't agree with the mission in Kosovo or Bosnia, being part of loyal opposition is not hateful towards the troops.


thunderspirit wrote:
Aretas wrote:

I believe I have nailed down your angle in this whole mess in regards to Amercican foreign policy.

You hate America.

Aaaaaand anything else any poster might have said is wholly invalidated with one succinct, dismissive "rebuttal." Stellar.

LOL, I like your sarcasm. If you keep reading I explain a little further. Some posters have an axe to grind, they have a bias, an agenda. They oppose the US at every turn.


So, I've gotten to know a lot of your b/c of your political ideology. Do you guys play D&D/Pathfinder? LOL.

What campaigns are you guys/gals playing?

What characters are you currently playing?
I'd like to see your GAME faces not just your political ones. It just might make all of us look at one another as gamers first and the Love might spread a little.


Aretas wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aretas wrote:


I believe I have nailed down your angle in this whole mess in regards to Amercican foreign policy.

You hate America. At the same time you agree with American foreign policy on their intervention in the Balkans. (Bosnia & Kosovo)

In my learned opinion the US should have stayed out of both conflicts. In addition to that I...

I also served 7 years active duty, 1999-2006 (I was even already on a deployment overseas on Sep. 11th and was redirected to Afghanistan).

If you disagree with my beliefs, by your logic, you hate the troops.

Do you hate the troops?

I appreciate your service! I do not hate the troops, I support them 100%. A lot of my buddys are rolling back from Afghanistan. What are your beliefs? I didn't agree with the mission in Kosovo or Bosnia, being part of loyal opposition is not hateful towards the troops.

Then stop saying people hate America. It's disrespectful to them and our country.


Perhaps it would have been better to say to the poster he has a strong contempt for America when he said America tortures on a whim. They believe they are above international law. Is a nice place to live only if your rich or healthy, and many more. Read some of Smarnil's posts and tell me if he is relaying critisms or something else.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
Perhaps it would have been better to say to the poster he has a strong contempt for America. When he said America tortures on a whim. They believe they are above international law. Is a nice place to live only if your rich or healthy, and many, many more. Read some of Smarnil's posst and tell me if he is relaying critisms or something else.

I believe we've done a lot of wrong things and are still doing them. I think politicians play politics with war and peoples lives all the time. Pretty much every president since Woodrow Wilson has authorized some form of violence against foreign nationals who could hardly be considered a "clear and present" danger.

You posted some interesting facts about our health care. One fact you left out is the number of people who become bankrupt from medical expenses. 60% of all bankruptcies in this country in fact, or over 1.8 million people every year. The countries who had a lower survival rate of cancer patients all don't have that problem. Health care is great in this country... if you can afford it.

The rules of this country are set up to reward wealth, not build it. A great example is Romney's tax returns. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than normal income. People rich enough to live off their investments are taxed less than people who work for a living.

We do act like we are above the law. In fact, we refuse to sign any treaty for international regulations that could enforce those regulations if we are also subject to them. The major reason we pulled troops out of Iraq is that we couldn't get a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) that included immunity for our troops from criminal prosecution. We say we believe in the "rule of law", but we refuse to help establish any true measure of it in the international community.


Pres, Aretas, you are at 11s on opposite ends of the spectrum. Your views would be represented better and welcomed more warmly if you were at around an 8.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

I believe we've done a lot of wrong things and are still doing them. I think politicians play politics with war and peoples lives all the time. Pretty much every president since Woodrow Wilson has authorized some form of violence against foreign nationals who could hardly be considered a "clear and present" danger.

You posted some interesting facts about our health care. One fact you left out is the number of people who become bankrupt from medical expenses. 60% of all bankruptcies in this country in fact, or over 1.8 million people every year. The countries who had a lower survival rate of cancer patients all don't have that problem. Health care is great in this country... if you can afford it.

The rules of this country are set up to reward wealth, not build it. A great example is Romney's tax returns. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than normal income. People rich enough to live off their investments are taxed less than people who work for a living.

We do act like we are above the law. In fact, we refuse to sign any treaty for international regulations that could enforce those regulations if we are also subject to them. The major reason we pulled troops out of Iraq is that we couldn't get a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) that included immunity for our troops from criminal prosecution. We say we believe in the "rule of law", but we refuse to help establish any true measure of it in the international community.

War is a tool for countries to get what they want. "Defending freedom" by attacking countries on the other side of the world that are no threat to the US is not a defensive stance, it's an excuse.

One can argue that there are things being defended, but they're not the lives of Americans, or the well-being of the middle class.

When Dick Cheney met with oil executives in a closed-door meeting to discuss energy policy, they didn't focus on renewables.


Aretas wrote:
In my learned opinion...

You do realize, of course, that there is absolutely no way to take you seriously when you say stuff like this? Or is that intentional (a little Poe spin, perhaps)?

451 to 500 of 788 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Fascism Alive and Well in 2012 All Messageboards