America - The Official Thread

[MrktMkr1986]

HOLY CRAP! YOU'RE BLACK???!!!

jk!

I am (seriously). Some of my friends would argue otherwise, though.

This is funny. Does anyone else see the humor in this?

I do.

The man who stands for nothing right...

Yea, we paid for that with 600,000 lives. I'd say we've vindicated ourselves.

Agreed -- but to a certain extent -- for it was out of the Civil War that the KKK emerged.

Yup, that was a bad idea. They have special privilages in our nation today.

Yeah! They live tax-free and they get their own reservation to live on. What do I get?!

This isn't exactly genocide. But racism is bad, too bad we haven't learned not to be. Now we're racist against white people... go figure.

Strongly disagree! You think affirmative action is racist against white people!? It simply "levels the playing field" or at least that was the original intent.

Now I'm no advocate of affirmative action, but that's because I don't believe in "hand-outs". Anything I get in life, I will be working for.

I can tell.

Yea, and we're having some issues with our democracy right now that you very much.

True.

Freedom comes in the form of capitalsim as well, which is pretty much ours.

Agreed.

Who need to what now? I need to be told I'm free? I didn't know that. If I do then maybe I'm not? What? How's that again?

I couldn't make sense out what he was trying to say either.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

it makes me laugh at the way americans talk about freedom. anyone would believe that the rest of us poor guys are all suffering under evil dictatorships or something like that. democracy wasnt created by america, its existed for thousands of years, and many nations have been practising it for far longer than the nation of america has existed on this earth. so why do americans bang on about it so much? im free, id say that i am just as free as any american, infact id say more so. maybe if you need to be told your free, then maybe your not.

They may not have created the idea of a Democracy, but they do have the most successful one.
The key point about democracy, that makes the US "bang on about it so much" is that no two democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other. It is a formula for peace.

As for being as free, if not more so, can I remind you that in the United Kingdom, we do not have a constitution. Our rights have not been so protected, and many have been stripped away.
The right to protect your home, for example, was being reconsidered by senior police, but turned down. We can still be prosecuted for assaulting a burglar

You then go on to mention several of the US's previous bloody campaigns, but coming from Wales (Part of the UK) you must know of our own bloody history. It is far longer and with far more bloodshed. We have fought everyone!
The Spanish, the French, the Germans, the Normans, the Argentines, the Vikings to name but a few, the countless civil wars, the War of the Roses and don't forget the Crusades...can they ever be justified.

How about our Imperialist days, our conquering and taking of land. Slaves, we had our fill.

However, does any of that mean that we are terrible people now? Are you going to hold the spectre of the Holocaust over the German people for ever?

i just made this list off the top of my head

As mentioned before...no kidding

before the 'short-sighted' americans flame me down, id just like to say this. im not anti-american, infact im not anti anything. the only thing i hate is IGNORANCE. i say live and let live. the world is a beautiful place, we should all learn to live with one another.

Yes, and if we all just held hands, all the worlds problems would go away

j/k, it was a good rant, just what this thread needed to liven it up a bit.

 

[ZAGGIN]

jeez! was only testing the waters! will have to remember not to have an opinion about america again. through chat rooms and other forums, i have noticed that americans seem sensitive about being american, they always seem to find it necessary to promote/defend their country. maybe if america wasnt so active around the world creating or bombing things flat, then maybe people wouldnt find so many things to take exception at. when was the last time the someone one critized sweden or new zealand?

im from the UK, and i would never dream of defending my country against any of its wrong doings (which there are many). why should i? im still proud to be brittish though, and would die for my country, but it doesnt mean that i have to agree with everything it stands for.

i knew there would be an over reaction to my post, and as predicted, it was quoted, miss quoted as it has been many times before. i was just trying to see if americans could see what it is that makes complete foreginers hate them? as i said before, im neutral, but america has a real bad image abroad, you surely cant believe that it is totally unwarranted. can you? if you do, then maybe there is the root of the whole problem - ignorance.

 

[Sage]

I like how you evaded almost everybody's questions (or answer to your questions).

Also, you seem to have this idea in your head that we all think pretty much the same, with this "America is the best!" attitude. I can tell you it's far from that. You can see on this board the differing opinions between Americans on foreign policy and systems of government. We're not the mass of brainless mush that many countries seem to make us out to be. And if it's so bad, why do so many people move here?

 

[///M-Spec]

jeez! was only testing the waters! will have to remember not to have an opinion about america again. through chat rooms and other forums, i have noticed that americans seem sensitive about being american, they always seem to find it necessary to promote/defend their country. maybe if america wasnt so active around the world creating or bombing things flat, then maybe people wouldnt find so many things to take exception at. when was the last time the someone one critized sweden or new zealand?

im from the UK, and i would never dream of defending my country against any of its wrong doings (which there are many). why should i? im still proud to be brittish though, and would die for my country, but it doesnt mean that i have to agree with everything it stands for.

i knew there would be an over reaction to my post, and as predicted, it was quoted, miss quoted as it has been many times before. i was just trying to see if americans could see what it is that makes complete foreginers hate them? as i said before, im neutral, but america has a real bad image abroad, you surely cant believe that it is totally unwarranted. can you? if you do, then maybe there is the root of the whole problem - ignorance.

In case you haven't noticed, there are several responses to your first post pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. I think before you accuse anyone around here of ignorance, you should first prove that you are not in fact, the ignorant one, by making some attempt at addressing the disputed statements. If not, we can only assume your last sentence here was just an elaborate attempt at irony.


M

 

[87chevy]

it makes me laugh at the way americans talk about freedom. anyone would believe that the rest of us poor guys are all suffering under evil dictatorships or something like that. democracy wasnt created by america, its existed for thousands of years, and many nations have been practising it for far longer than the nation of america has existed on this earth. so why do americans bang on about it so much? im free, id say that i am just as free as any american, infact id say more so. maybe if you need to be told your free, then maybe your not.

dandoff, continuing your analogy, you presented america the good, then you presented america the bad. just like the film starring clint eastwood, i would like to finish with america the ugly... read on.

***blah blah blah, I hate america, blah blah blah***

before the 'short-sighted' americans flame me down, id just like to say this. im not anti-american, infact im not anti anything. the only thing i hate is IGNORANCE. i say live and let live. the world is a beautiful place, we should all learn to live with one another.

If you read this guys post, you'd get the impression he doesn't believe nations should ever be allowed to be freed from their past. I bet Germany enjoys the fact that we don't hold the current nation accountable. I bet Russia is pretty happy with being allowed to move on also. Oh, and Japan is probably glad most people don't think like zaggin and still hold them accountable.

No, we haven't forgotten, nor should we ever forget our ancestors shortcomings, or we're bound to repeat them. But I didn't do it. I didn't condone it. I would have tried to stop all that horrible stuff. Why are you still bringing this crap up like we're still doing it? Why is everyone so quick to point out Americas history??? it's history, isn't it? Most of us have learned well from it. No not everyone has, but most of us.

Zaggin Your one of those people that always says something antagonistic, but then quickly says "I'm just sayin'..." to try and hide your malicous(sp?) intent. It doesn't work. Not on me anyways. Get a life man, quit trying to make us feel guilty for stuff that happend a 100 years ago.

 

[Delirious]

so yeah...a bit off tangent but...

who actually likes president bush besides me? (refuses to argue politics, but only wants to ask that question for survey-purposes)

 

[a6m5]

so yeah...a bit off tangent but...

who actually likes president bush besides me? (refuses to argue politics, but only wants to ask that question for survey-purposes)

I do. Sometimes, he goes overboard(conservatism, invasion of Iraq), but I think he's alright. I'd definitely prefer him over Kerry.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

so yeah...a bit off tangent but...

who actually likes president bush besides me? (refuses to argue politics, but only wants to ask that question for survey-purposes)

I do. I voted for him and I am a registered Republican.

 

[Delirious]

i see a lot of people here on the boards that dont like bush...dont know who else actually likes bush

what i see a lot of is indifference toward kerry and hatred toward bush...

that people voted for kerry because they didnt like bush...

 

[ledhed]

I voted for Bush because I cant stand Kerry.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I thought people voted because they want the political party that most closely represents their fiscal/political/social ideologies in power.

 

[Sage]

so yeah...a bit off tangent but...

who actually likes president bush besides me? (refuses to argue politics, but only wants to ask that question for survey-purposes)

I like his fiscal ideas. 👍 He gets a big 👎 from me though for using religion to guide his policies (oppressing gay rights, passing that law thingie for Shiavo, etc.)

 

[Danoff]

I like Bush on most fiscal issues and on foreign policy. When it comes to social issues like gay rights, abortion, religion, civil rights, etc. I get pretty ticked at him.

The other reason I like Bush is because he's a straight shooter. Even if I don't agree with him, I know that he means what he says - that he's passionate about his position on issues and he has real reasons for thinking that his stand on the issue is the right one for the country.

You just don't get that kind of feeling out of a John Kerry or a Bill Clinton. With them it's more like politics is a big game - telling half truths or telling lies is fun. Just feed the stupid American people whatever they want to hear as long as they'll vote for us. That's my impression of them. Though... I have to admit, Kerry was much less of a slimeball than Clinton (either Clinton).

 

[ledhed]

I thought people voted because they want the political party that most closely represents their fiscal/political/social ideologies in power.

What do you do when one party only PARTIALY represents your views ?
I took a chance with the republicans because they are closer to my views on fiscal and foriegn policy matters. I did not think that they were as bad as they are on social matters..I WAS WRONG .
Even knowing this..I still would not vote for Kerry nor would I vote for the party that thought that slime ball was a good choice for pesident. But another election is comming up for congress and I can sure as hell vote to throw the bums out.
Without controll of congress the idiots in charge cant do as much damage. I can only hope that enough people are pissed off enough at them as I am.

 

[Delirious]

morals are my biggest priority...everything else comes secondary to me...i couldnt stand a president with low or no morals...

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What do you do when one party only PARTIALY represents your views ?

Good question.

Honestly, I don't know -- I've never had to face this issue!

I took a chance with the republicans because they are closer to my views on fiscal and foriegn policy matters.

Trust me -- you're investment in this party will pay dividends.

I did not think that they were as bad as they are on social matters..I WAS WRONG .

You can't expect them to be centrist. They only pretend to be centrist to get the most amount of votes. Then once they're in office, they show their true colors. So, if you're a Centrist, vote depending on the issues you feel are more important. Social, political, fiscal, or foreign policies etc. If you're a Conservative, go Republican, if you're a Liberal, go Democrat. It would make things so much easier.

I could never understand why anyone would vote/not vote for someone based solely on their "personality".

Even knowing this..I still would not vote for Kerry nor would I vote for the party that thought that slime ball was a good choice for pesident. But another election is comming up for congress and I can sure as hell vote to throw the bums out.
Without controll of congress the idiots in charge cant do as much damage. I can only hope that enough people are pissed off enough at them as I am.

The violence!

Why the sudden 180?

I like Bush on most fiscal issues and on foreign policy. When it comes to social issues like gay rights, abortion, religion, civil rights, etc. I get pretty ticked at him.

Would you consider yourself a Centrist?

morals are my biggest priority...everything else comes secondary to me...i couldnt stand a president with low or no morals...

Hypothetical: The President appears to be moral to the general public, but just happens to be a proponent of eugenics/population control. Still going to vote for him/her?

 

[Sage]

[To danoff]: Would you consider yourself a Centrist?

Libertarian.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Libertarian.

Ahh, that explains it. 👍

Libertarian = a person with a political philosophy that holds that individuals have the right to complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others.

WHY?!

 

[Sage]

Because, freedom's good! The key is "as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others" – so that means freedom, as long as you don't hurt anybody else. Isn't that exactly what the founding fathers wanted?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Because, freedom's good! The key is "as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others" – so that means freedom, as long as you don't hurt anybody else. Isn't that exactly what the founding fathers wanted?

Perhaps, but I do not agree with that philosophy.

 

[Sage]

Hm, maybe we should make a new thread for this…? I mean, it is about U.S. politics, but I think this thread is supposed to have more to do with the U.S.'s foreign policy.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Hm, maybe we should make a new thread for this…? I mean, it is about U.S. politics, but I think this thread is supposed to have more to do with the U.S.'s foreign policy.

I don't see why not.

 

[Sage]

Okey dokey.

 

[ledhed]

Why the sudden 180?



Would you consider yourself a Centrist?

The Republicans who decided they had to butt in on a very private issue and overule the State and federal courts have to be thrown / voted out of office . Thats how you make a point to a politician. Republicans are supposed to stand for LESS government and a government that is not INTRUSIVE ...I'd say that they are the ones that made the 180 . i do not like the way they are attemting to restrict speech with crazy obsenity cases and the burr they put into the FCC is disgusting. they have also gotten carried away with the patriot act . being safe and having money wont mean balls without FREEDOM .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The Republicans who decided they had to butt in on a very private issue and overule the State and federal courts have to be thrown / voted out of office .

That's what the party is all about. Conservatism and limiting change -- they limit change by "butting in on private issues".

Thats how you make a point to a politician.

I agree.

Republicans are supposed to stand for LESS government and a government that is not INTRUSIVE

Only if circumstances call for change will a conservative do the opposite.

...I'd say that they are the ones that made the 180 .

Temporarily

i do not like the way they are attemting to restrict speech with crazy obsenity cases and the burr they put into the FCC is disgusting.

Typical conservatism. I'm not at all surprised.

they have also gotten carried away with the patriot act .

Only because of 9/11. If there was no 9/11, there would be no Patriot Act.

being safe and having money wont mean balls without FREEDOM .

I disagree.

 

[Danoff]

That's what the party is all about. Conservatism and limiting change -- they limit change by "butting in on private issues".

That's why they wanted to CHANGE the tax code and CHANGE social security. By the way, the big deal with the schaivo case is that the republicans CHANGED the way things were supposed to work by passing a bill.

They want to overturn roe vs. wade so that they can change the abortion policy of this country. They passed to patriot act so that they could change the way we fight terrorism.

I'd say the republicans have been all about change.

That's what the party is all about. Conservatism and limiting change -- they limit change by "butting in on private issues".

Of course 9/11 would be a glaring contradiction of this.

being safe and having money wont mean balls without FREEDOM .

I disagree.

Do I need to break out the padded cell argument again? I thought I already delt with this. Freedom means you have to risk some safety. But freedom is the only state in which a society can be happy and thrive. Every other state results in some oppression of some people - some injustice by the state.

 

[Duke]

Ahh, that explains it. 👍

Libertarian = a person with a political philosophy that holds that individuals have the right to complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the freedom of others.

WHY?!

Why in the name of trees not?! That has to be the silliest question I've heard in some time... either that, or one that is more self-revealing than Conservatives usually choose to be.

Why is it crazy to want personal freedom and personal responsibility? Unless you're being brutally honest about wanting to control others who don't match your 'moral standards' of behaviour...

[EDIT] I'll paste this into the Libertarian thread for further discussion.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

That's why they wanted to CHANGE the tax code and CHANGE social security. By the way, the big deal with the schaivo case is that the republicans CHANGED the way things were supposed to work by passing a bill.

Of course they want to change it! The want to change it to GO BACK TO THE WAY THINGS WERE. If you go from the 61st floor in an elevator to the 37th floor. You have just "changed" levels. What the Conservatives are doing are going back to where they were before -- change so that there really is no change.

They want to overturn roe vs. wade so that they can change the abortion policy of this country. They passed to patriot act so that they could change the way we fight terrorism.

I'd say the republicans have been all about change.

Depending on the circumstances. Some change is necessary in order to make progress. We will not agree on what should be changed, and what should not.

Do I need to break out the padded cell argument again? I thought I already delt with this. Freedom means you have to risk some safety. But freedom is the only state in which a society can be happy and thrive.

Not in today's society.

Every other state results in some oppression of some people - some injustice by the state.

It doesn't have to be that way.

 

[Danoff]

It doesn't have to be that way.

I would like for you to explain how... perhaps not in this thread but somewhere.

Of course they want to change it! The want to change it to GO BACK TO THE WAY THINGS WERE.

Not in the schaivo case. Not in the abortion case. Not really in the social security case. Your view of conservatism is incorrect. They do not seek to preserve or revert.