errr lol srry... i was eating cookie dough when i wrote that. ALOT of cookie dough. yeah but, even if the phrase "under God" was put in in hte 50s, why does it matter? If you dont think it should be in there, then ignore it, or dont say it. ucna ignore that its there. Christains cant ignore that its NOT there...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Created By: FPM
American and Proud.
Quote from Prizm »
Doesn't America have the right to be a bit self-centered? I mean, American culture is THE dominant culture in the world. Every country is hugely affected by America economically, culturally, and politically. Whether or not you think that's a good thing, it would explain why we're self-centered, wouldn't it?
errr lol srry... i was eating cookie dough when i wrote that. ALOT of cookie dough. yeah but, even if the phrase "under God" was put in in hte 50s, why does it matter? If you dont think it should be in there, then ignore it, or dont say it. ucna ignore that its there. Christains cant ignore that its NOT there...
Yes I can. In fact, I would rather it not be in the Pledge of Allegiance.
the economy is not going down at the moment a war ends. Like you say, the first years after the Cold War were still good years. Evrybody was optimistic. The USA is world dominating. But after that, the economy started going down. and the USA needed z new enemy. Bush couldn't wait to invade other countries after the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
I'm sure that this fight (against terrorism) will take a long time.
So... the whole decade of general prosperity that was the 90s was just the afterglow of a Cold War economy? A Cold War economy that - before Reagan - added a new word to the English language: "stagflation?"
Quote from Pacman »
It's an american puppet.
Do you really think an American puppet would refrain from condemning Hezbollah's recent actions? And condemn Israel, in fact? I disagree with Prime Minister al-Maliki, myself, but hey, he's showing some spine.
Quote from Pacman »
Where is the voice of the people who want the americans out of Iraq?
It's not so much a "voice" as it is "yet another fireball producing still more American and Iraqi corpses."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's an american puppet. Where is the voice of the people who want the americans out of Iraq? In the mean time, Pepsi has a new market.
The new leader of Iraq may be a "puppet" however, are you saying that you would rather, say, a north korian (sp?) puppet? I also have one question, what is with you and pepsi? do you not like american companies to prosper?
I'll give one example, Live Nation (ClearChannel).
the people who control Live nation are close friends of Bush.
Michael Powell ( President of the FCC Federal Communications Commission, the body responsible for the recent deregulations which allowed Clear Channel to buy out a good number of radio and TV stations) is none other than the son of Colin Powell.
During the first days of the war in Iraq, radio stations and TV Channels in hands of Clear Channel campaigned in favour of the war, and they still boycot pacifist artists (Michael Franti and Spearhead was on the black list some years ago, I don't know if they still are, Rage against the machine is also on the black list.).
And the reported lies about the war.
ow, I found this:
Coca Cola is also one of the sponsors of Bush. since 2000, they gave more then $1.000.000 to the republican party.
A company that doesn't care about human rights (you can ask people in Colombia and India)
While I am not surprised that corporations who finance governments occasionally get favors down the line, as in many democratic countries, the U.S' foreign policy is not simply done with corporate interests put to the forefront.
the economy is not going down at the moment a war ends. Like you say, the first years after the Cold War were still good years. Evrybody was optimistic. The USA is world dominating. But after that, the economy started going down. and the USA needed z new enemy. Bush couldn't wait to invade other countries after the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
I'm sure that this fight (against terrorism) will take a long time.
Alright, you have a good theory, now offer proof. I am impressed of your knowledge of corporations, so I think if you are really behind this ideal, and are able to check your facts, you just may surprise me.
I don't say only the USA, if you look at one of my posts, you see that I also mention Danone and France, just to show you that I know that not all multinationals are American (I boycot a lot of multinationals and not all of them are American).
Now, while this may not actually contribute to the debate, I still want to ask you:
How many "multinationals" are in your Belgian homeland?
The underdog effect...
Ah well, those Europeans and their misguided political estimations. Guess the average European isn't so different from your average American.
And as long as the american influence is there, this 'terrorism' will not stop.
The general opinion in America is that we need to stay in there simply to keep civil war from happening. It seems that both you and me happen to disagree with those people, but I am starting to have doubts.
I have something against Coca Cola (yes american), Pepsi (yes also american), Danone (French), Nestlé (Swiss) and Kraft (now in American hands as far as I know).
Well, good thing you don't live here, because the U.S. consumer is practically drowning in the stuff.
Eh, I was never a fan of the boycott. A letter to the executives would probably be more effective, or staging a protest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
"It's just my opinion" doesn't hold a lot of water when you're attempting to justify factual assertions.
Quote from Pacman »
Yes, there are two sides, the ones who are not against the american influence, and the ones who are against it. There is a civil war now (but we still have to wait untill Bush uses these words).
Actually, the war (if something so nebulous can be called that) is roughly Sunni-Shia, and there are some on both sides who are for/against the American presence.
Quote from Pacman »
And of course there is a leader who's on the side of the USA. As long as there are troops, there will be no one of the other groups.
So the government in Iraq is now a puppet, because americans don't allow other people.
Even if a puppet is what we wanted, do you think we'd be so ham-handed as to actually block someone we didn't want from entering office? The truth is that the Prime Minister is Prime Minister because he's willing and able to use the democratic system (which, yes, I'll admit, we initiated the creation of), and a friendliness towards democracy tends not to make one rabidly anti-American.
Quote from Pacman »
And as long as the american influence is there, this 'terrorism' will not stop. America will never win this fight, why is this so hard to see?
Define the fight. Define what winning it would entail. I can't tell whether something is hard to see until I know what I'm looking for.
EDIT: ****, this thread has become another Iraq thread, hasn't it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
errr lol srry... i was eating cookie dough when i wrote that. ALOT of cookie dough. yeah but, even if the phrase "under God" was put in in hte 50s, why does it matter? If you dont think it should be in there, then ignore it, or dont say it. ucna ignore that its there. Christains cant ignore that its NOT there...
What about Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc... Can they ignore it aswell? This isn't a Theocracy or a nation with a state religion. All Religions are treated equally. If the Christians can't ignore the fact its not there, we need to include phrases for all the denominations and faiths existing in America. I shudder the thought of actually composing a piece that would work for such.
EDIT: ****, this thread has become another Iraq thread, hasn't it?
Pretty much. As such, lets try and get it back on track...
More people vote for American Idol every week than do in the Presidential Elections. If that dosn't spell Apathy, what does? We have a large base of extremely apathetic citizens combined with a President who is willing too exploit this inertia and the ignorance of the populace, and the rest of the world see what Bush and co. are getting away with, and then see little-to no resistance too it, or anyone speaking out against it. They see the people sitting on their obese hinds, drinking coca-cola and watching Dr. Phil and American Idol, and that certainly means they agree. Some do, but many other don't. They really just don't care.
I've talked too so many people who barely even know the President's name, let alone what he and the rest of our government is doing. That frightens me, but what frightens me more is that when I do tell them some things that have been going on, they do disagree, and often very strongly, with what is happening, but they simply dont care enough. As long as they have their Pepsi, Cheetos, and 24-hour a day programming that lets them escape reality, they dont much care what actualy goes on in reality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
I've talked too so many people who barely even know the President's name, let alone what he and the rest of our government is doing. That frightens me, but what frightens me more is that when I do tell them some things that have been going on, they do disagree, and often very strongly, with what is happening, but they simply dont care enough. As long as they have their Pepsi, Cheetos, and 24-hour a day programming that lets them escape reality, they dont much care what actualy goes on in reality.
What of those who do care? Are they condemned to be lumped with the rest in the minds of sneering Frenchmen? Should the measure of America be judged by looking at those who by the very fact that defines them don't matter?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
ods[A]ssassin']wow dude who created isreal? THE US!!! we kinda hafta help them out and also sadam killed more thatn 45thousand of his ppl EACH year he was in "office" ALSO he did have WMD's they found over 100,000 bio chemical weapons in underground storage containers
not only that but israel dont need the us's help they got their **** undercontroll b/c WE TRAINED THEIR ARMY!! durrrr we also gave them all of the equiptment they have INCLUDING!!!!!!! NUCLEAR CAPABILITYS (sp?)
dont try to tell me that the us sticks its nose in every ones biss if you look at ww1 and ww2 we were brought into the war by the sinking of a cruse boat that the germans assumed was a threat to them killing 24 us citizens, then in ww2 hitler wanted the mexican army to invade the us taking the us eyes away from him you no what the mexicans said?! F___ That. not to mention if we (the us) hadent "stuck" our noses into the world affairs HALF (if not all) of the world would be controlled by hitler and his nazi's
though i no all this i want the us to return to isolationism so that the rest of the world can blow them selves to hell and no more american lives will be lost but then again thats me!
-=GA=-
First I never said anything about WW1 or WW2, we didn't stick our nose in that because we were determined to right what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor. The way I see it, whether we trained the Isrealian army or not, if Hizballah(Lebanon), who is supported by Syria and Iran, along with Hamas(Palestinian Government), who is also supported by Syria, want to all out invade Isreal, the US is gonna stick their nose in it and maybe even send some troops.
What of those who do care? Are they condemned to be lumped with the rest in the minds of sneering Frenchmen? Should the measure of America be judged by looking at those who by the very fact that defines them don't matter?
Its not a matter of what should be, but what is. There are more people who support Bush, and more that don't care (Which from an outside perspective would certainly seem to be supporting, and complacency is in a way support.) than those who disagree, and if I were a Frenchman or anyone not from the US, I would see a country that for the most part agrees with Bush's policies.
People generalize, and when the common denominator is in support of a contrary view, then the generalization becomes such.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
This discussion has deviated a little from the original topic. But I just want to post my view of the U.S.
As individuals, americans are cool people (and why would I be posting in a forum full of them if I thought otherwise?), but as a political entity, the U.S. are frighteningly imperialistic and very hypocritical. I don't find myself siding with them too often when a situation calls for a critizicing view.
I'm also not too fond of the fact that they don't view themselves as Imperialists, in spite of everything...
As hypocritical as it may sound, I saw a documentary on TV, that documented a group of Evangelist Christians (and no, it was not Michael Moore). Essentially it just told you what I've told you - that they live in little circles, get home taught, or some variation of it where they are fed "Biological Creationism" or something like that, and are eventually expected to end up in the White House. The program eventually centred on this one student who was a very active member of his circle, and on his trip to essentially "get noticed" early on in his potential career by meeting some people who work in government or wherever, he noted how, apart from it being daunting actually meeting these people, going on the electric underground system and actually travelling to New York was too. And I was left thinking, "You want to be President, yet it appears you haven't been out of your little safehaven for a single day - how are you going to manage?" These people just appear way too out of touch. Anyhoo, as I said, as hypocritical as it may sound, I used this singular example as a viewpoint for the general group, as the idea didn't seem too outrageous.
First, I don't think it's that outrageous for a young american to think that visiting new york on their own. Second, this view is nothing like anything i have encountered in my entire life. I question the validity of this "documentary" and of the station that even aired it.
Quote from gerg »
I would expect the son of a President to get around more, considering that person is not only likely to become a future President, but also because I would expect it comes with the relation.
But you haven't answered my question. Why do you think he hadn't?
Quote from gerg »
I don't understand your point. Life is full of things we don't inted to happen - earthquakes, theft, and even homosexuality. It appears that your solution is to just watch these things pass us by, if I am not mistaken.
I'm sorry, I don't think this is an appropriate response to what you quoted. I don't think it really makes any sense in context.
Quote from gerg »
Firstly, because of equal rights. We may be gay, but we're still humans. Secondly, if you still insist that marriage is wholely religious, then I would argue that why can't gay men and women et cetera be as religious as anyone else? Thirdly, gay men and women fit my description of marriage. I would declare that marriage is a decleration of love, and considering that true love should transcend gender and sexuality, among other things, then I see no reason why gay men and women, if they love eachother, should not be able to get married.
Since when is getting married a right? I understand that you're still human, and I will continue to treat you as such. About religious gay men and women... do you know any? The only one (other than those sworn to celibacy for being a priest) that I've heard of was one of my roommates. He WAS Christian, then decided he was gay and since he felt like he was sinning, he stopped being a Christian. Not because he was being scorned or anything... just because he felt like he was sinning. I would rather have him continue to believe and accept God, even though he knew he was sinning. Does your version of marriage involve a church? Right now I don't know of any churches that marry homosexuals. If your view doesn't involve the church, then why not a civil union?
Quote from CCR »
relegious is not a synonim for christian. There are a lot of cultures who has some kind of marriage, not only the christian ones. In fact Marriage is only importent in christianey for 400 years I think.
I never said it was.
Quote from CCR »
All the persons against gays are catholic
Absolutely not true.
Quote from CCR »
So, if everybody said 'kill America' It is normal that I say it to, although I don't think that America should be destroyed? That a pretty strange argument. If every time an important political leader is on tv he said god bless America, I'm getting a feeling that religion and politics aren't separated. I know that it is in most European constitutions and I think it also stands this way in yours, but I'm not 100% sure about that.
I think you missed the point. The term "God Bless America" has really much more to do with patriotism (gag*) than with God. If you kept saying "Kill America" to get people behind you... that might work if you were in Europe, I don't think it would get you many votes in the US though. Whenever you hear this, just think of patriotism, and that will show you what they are really appealing to.
*I say gag to patriotism, because patriotism is what most people use as their scapegoat to justify all the country's problems.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
*I say gag to patriotism, because patriotism is what most people use as their scapegoat to justify all the country's problems.
Amen to that. While I love living in America, and I would die for my fellow Americans, it has more to do for me with community and my love for entertainment. Loving America because you believe it is the freest nation in the world, and believing that you need to spread "American-style Freedom" is a mistake in my opinion.
As hypocritical as it may sound, I saw a documentary on TV, that documented a group of Evangelist Christians (and no, it was not Michael Moore). Essentially it just told you what I've told you - that they live in little circles, get home taught, or some variation of it where they are fed "Biological Creationism" or something like that, and are eventually expected to end up in the White House. The program eventually centred on this one student who was a very active member of his circle, and on his trip to essentially "get noticed" early on in his potential career by meeting some people who work in government or wherever, he noted how, apart from it being daunting actually meeting these people, going on the electric underground system and actually travelling to New York was too. And I was left thinking, "You want to be President, yet it appears you haven't been out of your little safehaven for a single day - how are you going to manage?" These people just appear way too out of touch. Anyhoo, as I said, as hypocritical as it may sound, I used this singular example as a viewpoint for the general group, as the idea didn't seem too outrageous.
This is a fringe example. Out of a country with hundreds of millions, I doubt there are more than 500 children raised in this fashion.
I think it's the weapon industry who forced this.
The US developped weapons and other equipments, also after the Cold War. It's an industry that makes the economy strong.
But... (I'm sorry to make this link)... the same happened before WWII. Hitler saved Germany. The economy recovered, thanks to the weapon industry. At one point, you have to do something with those weapons, and war is the final result of this kind of economy.
The flaw in your logic is that we had already been fighting a major war in Afghanistan. If the government needed a gun boom, they could've simply sent a bunch of troops to Afghanistan.
In my eyes, this already a civil war.
Mine too. Now the question is: will the U.S. troops be able to do anything about it?
Multinationals of Belgian origin?
Yes, that is what I was asking. Sorry about the miscommunication.
So, if everybody said 'kill America' It is normal that I say it to, although I don't think that America should be destroyed?
Unfortunately, in the countries that do say it, it is altogether too normal.
In fact Marriage is only importent in christianey for 400 years I think.
No. Marriage has been a part of Christianity ever since the Gospel was written.
All the persons against gays are catholic
This statement is not true. In fact, I would say that most of it comes from the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson crowd.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
Of course it's not Pepsi who convinced Bush and the government to go to war, I think it's the weapon industry who forced this.
The US developped weapons and other equipments, also after the Cold War. It's an industry that makes the economy strong.
But... (I'm sorry to make this link)... the same happened before WWII. Hitler saved Germany. The economy recovered, thanks to the weapon industry. At one point, you have to do something with those weapons, and war is the final result of this kind of economy.
The same is happening with the US, they have all those weapons, and they have to use it. And while using the weapons, the economy will grow more and more (oil for example).
I work for a defense contractor. These weapons of which you speak do not "need to be used." They are perfectly content sitting there and being used in simulations. The new technology that comes provides need for new equipment/vehicles/etc. and thus the companies remain stable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Since when is getting married a right? I understand that you're still human, and I will continue to treat you as such. About religious gay men and women... do you know any? The only one (other than those sworn to celibacy for being a priest) that I've heard of was one of my roommates. He WAS Christian, then decided he was gay and since he felt like he was sinning, he stopped being a Christian. Not because he was being scorned or anything... just because he felt like he was sinning. I would rather have him continue to believe and accept God, even though he knew he was sinning. Does your version of marriage involve a church? Right now I don't know of any churches that marry homosexuals. If your view doesn't involve the church, then why not a civil union?
There are plenty of homosexual Satanists. The Church of Satan (the official one) supports homosexual marriage (they do NOT however, support things like human sacrifice despite common belief. Read the Satanic Bible if you don't believe me. Or just go to their website unless you think thats a sin.)
*edit*
And people DO have the right to be Satanists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
Its not a matter of what should be, but what is. There are more people who support Bush, and more that don't care (Which from an outside perspective would certainly seem to be supporting, and complacency is in a way support.) than those who disagree, and if I were a Frenchman or anyone not from the US, I would see a country that for the most part agrees with Bush's policies.
Well, the fact that he's in the White House means that the country for the most part (a) preferred Bush's policies to Kerry's or (b) didn't care, and we can disregard (b), so it is safe to say that, for a given definition of "agreement," the country does for the most part agree with Bush. Yes, the approval polls suggest that this agreement is not unconditional, but faced with a choice between two actual alternative policies, we did choose Bush's.
Which politician Americans are perceived to agree with is not what upsets me; if I see a democratically elected leader, I'm going to assume most of his constituents agree with him too. What disturbs me is rather the perception of decadent apathy that is very true for many Americans, but also very untrue for many others, and those for whom it is true do not matter. Even if the average American is a fat, ignorant slob, he's not the one the average non-American should be worried about.
Quote from pacman »
hmm which fight? Bush is always talking about the war on terrorism. The fighing in Iraq is always a fight against the terrorists.
But these 'terrorists' will never be defeated, they are not giving up their fight.
The troops will not return as long as there are terrorist attacks, but the attacks will never stop as long as there are American troops in Iraq.
We already have one never-ending-fight in the Middle East,...
Our stated policy is to remain there until the Iraqi government has the military and police organization and strength to do for itself what we are currently doing for it. So no, the troops are going to be coming back before the terrorist attacks are over, and because the terrorists are not entirely focused on kicking us out, but also on restoring a Baathist regime or bringing about something Iran-like, the attacks will continue long after we've gone - and, if we pull out too soon, they may well topple the government, and plunge the country into a real civil war. It's not nearly as simple as you make it sound.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
[quote=gerg]Though the separation of church and state is enshrined in the US Constitution.[/quote]
Just so everyone who hasnt read the US constitution knows, there are no such words in it. The closest thin there is is the Establishment clause which reads
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The phrase separation of "church and state" came from a letter Thomas Jefferson was writting to a group of Danbury Baptists. In that letter he used to phrase to defend the rights of the Christians and the government not controling them, not the other way around.
Quote from lerabu »
Here is how I would qualify the USA president: He's like a Chimney Imp with a Jitte.
An idiotic creature with expensive weapons at his disposal. I will refrain from further comments.
Coments like these drive me up a wall. When you make a political statement please use some other arguement other than just "hes stupid" It makes you sound like a two year old whos loosing an arguement. Say why you don't agree with him or don't like what he is doing. Perhaps "I don't like Bush because of the war" or "I don't like Bush because of his military spending". Don't just say something baseless like "he sounds like a retard when he talks", seeing as one of the most intelegent humans on the planet (Stephen Hawking) can't even speak. I don't even like Bush very much.
The documentary was called "God's Next Army", and was shown on a British terrestrial channel called Channel 4. Here is a summary of it I found taken from Channel 4's website:
I must note that the documentary was not negative towards the group, in my mind, as there was no need to be. If this is the state of America's next Presidents and Congressmen, then there's no need for negative spin to be put on it - I'd be plenty scared enough already.
Negative? Shoot... "I" want to go to that college. I WISH that I hadn't grown up seeing all the 'moral decay of the world'. It's really kind of disgusting the way people act these days. The only things bad I see about that whole writeup are 1) "Though the separation of church and state is enshrined in the US Constitution, with financial backing from the evangelical community the college aims to 'rechristianise' America; to 'preserve the world from the sinfulness of man'." which is really just false. As was already pointed out, that is nowhere in our Constitution. 2) "Most have been educated at home and have had no contact with either the social diversity or the political and intellectual cut and thrust of mainstream schools." I think that's just speculation. I've known many home-schooled people, some of whom I wouldn't mind being in the political arena.
Quote from gerg »
Obviously there has been a misunderstanding, so please may you repeat what you said, in a clearer manner, to avoid any confusion.
Quote from Sutherlands »
What is the "good" that comes from forcing the church to recognize a union and/or giving benefits to someone that the government never intended them to get?
I don't know how I can make this clearer. I'm not saying to let things pass us by, I'm saying there's no good that comes from either of those actions.
Quote from gerg »
No, I do not. I would say that by nature, I am a reform Jew, but my unrest with Judaism lies with my view of God, rather than my homosexuality. Perhaps, if I had rested these views, I may still not be very religious due to the conflicts homosexuality could have brung with my belief in Judaism. I just don't think that not being religious and being LGBT automatically holds any correlation because of the fact that these people are LGBT.[quote=gerg]I bet there's a large correlation between religion and "LGBT". Also, please note that the church is against homosexual sex, not homosexuals.
[quote=gerg]Because I still believe we should be able to get married.
Why? What gives you that "right"?
Quote from gerg »
I don't want a civil union
Why not?
Quote from gerg »
- if I can't go and get married with a man in Canada and have it recognised in England, it's a slap in the face!
You don't think it's a slap in the face to Christians to say "You have to marry gay people"?
Quote from gerg »
Personally I believe that the roles you mention should be reversed. All marriages should by nature be civil, and then if you want to have a relgious ceremony you would get a "relgious ceremony". However, the civil marriage would come first and foremost, and be the one formaly recognised.
We have a "religious ceremony", it's called a wedding, it results in marriage. A "civil marriage" can also be called a "civil union".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
I think its funny that many of the people I know who voted for Bush the first and second times around are now joining the Bush-hating bandwagon. I on the other hand was against Bush from the start, but I now support the war in Iraq somewhat (we sent numerous threats over and over telling Sadam to comply or face the consequences. In the end we held up our end of the bargain. My only problem is with the timing. We shouldn't have invaded until after we were done in Afghanistan.)
*edit*
Also, marriage is not a religious thing. Its a property thing. The religion is merely a cover. Its really about ownership.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
GENERATION 3.78: The first time you see this, add it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation
I, too, did not vote for Bush, but end up supporting him more now.
Do you have reasons or sources or anything for what you said about marriage?
OK, maybe I worded that too strongly, but the contractual aspect of marriage is to important to be ignored. All throughout history, marriage has been used as a means of barter and a tool for politics. I'd list some examples, but there are so many that I wouldn't know where to start.
Maybe marriage is religious in one way, but its just as much a secular institution as it is a religious one.
*edit*
While my Mom was in Afghanistan, she made friends with a lot of the people there. She showed them pictures of my sibling and I.
Apparently, I got a couple of marriage proposals. Apparently, one man offered my Mom a dowry of twenty camels to marry his daughter off to me. My Mom could have spent those twenty camels to marry my sister off to an Afghani man.
Its all about trade and commerce.
Are we Americans any better? How often do you hear about people marrying just for the money?
Back in the ancient and medieval ages, it wasn't uncommon for children to be married as early as infancy. These marriages would be arranged by the parents for economic and political advantages. It wasn't about religeon at all.
I assume that's some kind of sarcasm. If so, I don't get it.
Nope, I was being honest.
Quote from gerg »
I've met a home-schooled person, someone who I respectfully pity. I believe that the lack of interaction with other children and other views, in as frequent a manner as lunch breaks et cetera, meant that she was rather timid and, well... "soft" in the sense that she had had no exposure to real life. I would believe that home-schooling does not really prepare one's children for the real world.
Some are like that, yes, but not all.
Quote from gerg »
I would say that I have the right to declare my love for someone and have it officially recognised as much as the next person.
I would say that's what a civil union is.
Quote from gerg »
I would not want a civil partnership because I feel that purebred marriage should be available to me, in the sense that my mum and dad got a civil wedding.
Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't understand the difference and why you're so against a "union" as opposed to a "marriage." I mean, dictionaries just define it as a "union between a woman and a man" or similar.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Created By: FPM
American and Proud.
Rock|on.|Sad|but|true.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Yes I can. In fact, I would rather it not be in the Pledge of Allegiance.
So... the whole decade of general prosperity that was the 90s was just the afterglow of a Cold War economy? A Cold War economy that - before Reagan - added a new word to the English language: "stagflation?"
Do you really think an American puppet would refrain from condemning Hezbollah's recent actions? And condemn Israel, in fact? I disagree with Prime Minister al-Maliki, myself, but hey, he's showing some spine.
It's not so much a "voice" as it is "yet another fireball producing still more American and Iraqi corpses."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's an american puppet. Where is the voice of the people who want the americans out of Iraq?
In the mean time, Pepsi has a new market.
The new leader of Iraq may be a "puppet" however, are you saying that you would rather, say, a north korian (sp?) puppet? I also have one question, what is with you and pepsi? do you not like american companies to prosper?
While I am not surprised that corporations who finance governments occasionally get favors down the line, as in many democratic countries, the U.S' foreign policy is not simply done with corporate interests put to the forefront.
Alright, you have a good theory, now offer proof. I am impressed of your knowledge of corporations, so I think if you are really behind this ideal, and are able to check your facts, you just may surprise me.
Now, while this may not actually contribute to the debate, I still want to ask you:
How many "multinationals" are in your Belgian homeland?
Ah well, those Europeans and their misguided political estimations. Guess the average European isn't so different from your average American.
The general opinion in America is that we need to stay in there simply to keep civil war from happening. It seems that both you and me happen to disagree with those people, but I am starting to have doubts.
Well, good thing you don't live here, because the U.S. consumer is practically drowning in the stuff.
Eh, I was never a fan of the boycott. A letter to the executives would probably be more effective, or staging a protest.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
"It's just my opinion" doesn't hold a lot of water when you're attempting to justify factual assertions.
Actually, the war (if something so nebulous can be called that) is roughly Sunni-Shia, and there are some on both sides who are for/against the American presence.
Even if a puppet is what we wanted, do you think we'd be so ham-handed as to actually block someone we didn't want from entering office? The truth is that the Prime Minister is Prime Minister because he's willing and able to use the democratic system (which, yes, I'll admit, we initiated the creation of), and a friendliness towards democracy tends not to make one rabidly anti-American.
Define the fight. Define what winning it would entail. I can't tell whether something is hard to see until I know what I'm looking for.
EDIT: ****, this thread has become another Iraq thread, hasn't it?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What about Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, etc... Can they ignore it aswell? This isn't a Theocracy or a nation with a state religion. All Religions are treated equally. If the Christians can't ignore the fact its not there, we need to include phrases for all the denominations and faiths existing in America. I shudder the thought of actually composing a piece that would work for such.
Pretty much. As such, lets try and get it back on track...
More people vote for American Idol every week than do in the Presidential Elections. If that dosn't spell Apathy, what does? We have a large base of extremely apathetic citizens combined with a President who is willing too exploit this inertia and the ignorance of the populace, and the rest of the world see what Bush and co. are getting away with, and then see little-to no resistance too it, or anyone speaking out against it. They see the people sitting on their obese hinds, drinking coca-cola and watching Dr. Phil and American Idol, and that certainly means they agree. Some do, but many other don't. They really just don't care.
I've talked too so many people who barely even know the President's name, let alone what he and the rest of our government is doing. That frightens me, but what frightens me more is that when I do tell them some things that have been going on, they do disagree, and often very strongly, with what is happening, but they simply dont care enough. As long as they have their Pepsi, Cheetos, and 24-hour a day programming that lets them escape reality, they dont much care what actualy goes on in reality.
What of those who do care? Are they condemned to be lumped with the rest in the minds of sneering Frenchmen? Should the measure of America be judged by looking at those who by the very fact that defines them don't matter?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First I never said anything about WW1 or WW2, we didn't stick our nose in that because we were determined to right what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor. The way I see it, whether we trained the Isrealian army or not, if Hizballah(Lebanon), who is supported by Syria and Iran, along with Hamas(Palestinian Government), who is also supported by Syria, want to all out invade Isreal, the US is gonna stick their nose in it and maybe even send some troops.
Its not a matter of what should be, but what is. There are more people who support Bush, and more that don't care (Which from an outside perspective would certainly seem to be supporting, and complacency is in a way support.) than those who disagree, and if I were a Frenchman or anyone not from the US, I would see a country that for the most part agrees with Bush's policies.
People generalize, and when the common denominator is in support of a contrary view, then the generalization becomes such.
As individuals, americans are cool people (and why would I be posting in a forum full of them if I thought otherwise?), but as a political entity, the U.S. are frighteningly imperialistic and very hypocritical. I don't find myself siding with them too often when a situation calls for a critizicing view.
I'm also not too fond of the fact that they don't view themselves as Imperialists, in spite of everything...
But you haven't answered my question. Why do you think he hadn't?
I'm sorry, I don't think this is an appropriate response to what you quoted. I don't think it really makes any sense in context.
Since when is getting married a right? I understand that you're still human, and I will continue to treat you as such. About religious gay men and women... do you know any? The only one (other than those sworn to celibacy for being a priest) that I've heard of was one of my roommates. He WAS Christian, then decided he was gay and since he felt like he was sinning, he stopped being a Christian. Not because he was being scorned or anything... just because he felt like he was sinning. I would rather have him continue to believe and accept God, even though he knew he was sinning. Does your version of marriage involve a church? Right now I don't know of any churches that marry homosexuals. If your view doesn't involve the church, then why not a civil union?
I never said it was.
Absolutely not true.
I think you missed the point. The term "God Bless America" has really much more to do with patriotism (gag*) than with God. If you kept saying "Kill America" to get people behind you... that might work if you were in Europe, I don't think it would get you many votes in the US though. Whenever you hear this, just think of patriotism, and that will show you what they are really appealing to.
*I say gag to patriotism, because patriotism is what most people use as their scapegoat to justify all the country's problems.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
This is absurd in a way that renders the concept of absurdity mundane.
See above.
What on Earth could move you to think such incredible things?
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Amen to that. While I love living in America, and I would die for my fellow Americans, it has more to do for me with community and my love for entertainment. Loving America because you believe it is the freest nation in the world, and believing that you need to spread "American-style Freedom" is a mistake in my opinion.
This is a fringe example. Out of a country with hundreds of millions, I doubt there are more than 500 children raised in this fashion.
The flaw in your logic is that we had already been fighting a major war in Afghanistan. If the government needed a gun boom, they could've simply sent a bunch of troops to Afghanistan.
Mine too. Now the question is: will the U.S. troops be able to do anything about it?
Yes, that is what I was asking. Sorry about the miscommunication.
Unfortunately, in the countries that do say it, it is altogether too normal.
No. Marriage has been a part of Christianity ever since the Gospel was written.
This statement is not true. In fact, I would say that most of it comes from the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson crowd.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
There are plenty of homosexual Satanists. The Church of Satan (the official one) supports homosexual marriage (they do NOT however, support things like human sacrifice despite common belief. Read the Satanic Bible if you don't believe me. Or just go to their website unless you think thats a sin.)
*edit*
And people DO have the right to be Satanists.
There is an imposter among us...
Well, the fact that he's in the White House means that the country for the most part (a) preferred Bush's policies to Kerry's or (b) didn't care, and we can disregard (b), so it is safe to say that, for a given definition of "agreement," the country does for the most part agree with Bush. Yes, the approval polls suggest that this agreement is not unconditional, but faced with a choice between two actual alternative policies, we did choose Bush's.
Which politician Americans are perceived to agree with is not what upsets me; if I see a democratically elected leader, I'm going to assume most of his constituents agree with him too. What disturbs me is rather the perception of decadent apathy that is very true for many Americans, but also very untrue for many others, and those for whom it is true do not matter. Even if the average American is a fat, ignorant slob, he's not the one the average non-American should be worried about.
Our stated policy is to remain there until the Iraqi government has the military and police organization and strength to do for itself what we are currently doing for it. So no, the troops are going to be coming back before the terrorist attacks are over, and because the terrorists are not entirely focused on kicking us out, but also on restoring a Baathist regime or bringing about something Iran-like, the attacks will continue long after we've gone - and, if we pull out too soon, they may well topple the government, and plunge the country into a real civil war. It's not nearly as simple as you make it sound.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Just so everyone who hasnt read the US constitution knows, there are no such words in it. The closest thin there is is the Establishment clause which reads
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The phrase separation of "church and state" came from a letter Thomas Jefferson was writting to a group of Danbury Baptists. In that letter he used to phrase to defend the rights of the Christians and the government not controling them, not the other way around.
Coments like these drive me up a wall. When you make a political statement please use some other arguement other than just "hes stupid" It makes you sound like a two year old whos loosing an arguement. Say why you don't agree with him or don't like what he is doing. Perhaps "I don't like Bush because of the war" or "I don't like Bush because of his military spending". Don't just say something baseless like "he sounds like a retard when he talks", seeing as one of the most intelegent humans on the planet (Stephen Hawking) can't even speak. I don't even like Bush very much.
Negative? Shoot... "I" want to go to that college. I WISH that I hadn't grown up seeing all the 'moral decay of the world'. It's really kind of disgusting the way people act these days. The only things bad I see about that whole writeup are 1) "Though the separation of church and state is enshrined in the US Constitution, with financial backing from the evangelical community the college aims to 'rechristianise' America; to 'preserve the world from the sinfulness of man'." which is really just false. As was already pointed out, that is nowhere in our Constitution. 2) "Most have been educated at home and have had no contact with either the social diversity or the political and intellectual cut and thrust of mainstream schools." I think that's just speculation. I've known many home-schooled people, some of whom I wouldn't mind being in the political arena.
I don't know how I can make this clearer. I'm not saying to let things pass us by, I'm saying there's no good that comes from either of those actions.
Why? What gives you that "right"?
Why not?
You don't think it's a slap in the face to Christians to say "You have to marry gay people"? We have a "religious ceremony", it's called a wedding, it results in marriage. A "civil marriage" can also be called a "civil union".
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
*edit*
Also, marriage is not a religious thing. Its a property thing. The religion is merely a cover. Its really about ownership.
There is an imposter among us...
Do you have reasons or sources or anything for what you said about marriage?
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
OK, maybe I worded that too strongly, but the contractual aspect of marriage is to important to be ignored. All throughout history, marriage has been used as a means of barter and a tool for politics. I'd list some examples, but there are so many that I wouldn't know where to start.
Maybe marriage is religious in one way, but its just as much a secular institution as it is a religious one.
*edit*
While my Mom was in Afghanistan, she made friends with a lot of the people there. She showed them pictures of my sibling and I.
Apparently, I got a couple of marriage proposals. Apparently, one man offered my Mom a dowry of twenty camels to marry his daughter off to me. My Mom could have spent those twenty camels to marry my sister off to an Afghani man.
Its all about trade and commerce.
Are we Americans any better? How often do you hear about people marrying just for the money?
Back in the ancient and medieval ages, it wasn't uncommon for children to be married as early as infancy. These marriages would be arranged by the parents for economic and political advantages. It wasn't about religeon at all.
There is an imposter among us...
Some are like that, yes, but not all.
I would say that's what a civil union is.
Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't understand the difference and why you're so against a "union" as opposed to a "marriage." I mean, dictionaries just define it as a "union between a woman and a man" or similar.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)