hoppy;1239771 wrote: Enjoy your oil.
We do-if we can just keep it instead if using it to subsidise the south east of england. We have plenty of water as well and ample coal reserves even if maggie did shut down the mines and make us dependent on imported coal for our power stations.
You just can''t respond with a reasoned counterargument can you? You're flat out wrong and talking a load of cobblers, are you just not used to people not agreeing with you or something? If you can't put a logical case for what you believe maybe you should reconsider what you believe.
No to War!
No to War!
gmc;1239834 wrote: We do-if we can just keep it instead if using it to subsidise the south east of england. We have plenty of water as well and ample coal reserves even if maggie did shut down the mines and make us dependent on imported coal for our power stations.
You just can''t respond with a reasoned counterargument can you? You're flat out wrong and talking a load of cobblers, are you just not used to people not agreeing with you or something? If you can't put a logical case for what you believe maybe you should reconsider what you believe.
When one knows they are right, as I am, there is no need to to try to convince the flock of sheep to break free of flock mentality and become individuals. Nor is there a need to change from what I believe, to an idea popular with the "flock".
I blaze my own trails.
You just can''t respond with a reasoned counterargument can you? You're flat out wrong and talking a load of cobblers, are you just not used to people not agreeing with you or something? If you can't put a logical case for what you believe maybe you should reconsider what you believe.
When one knows they are right, as I am, there is no need to to try to convince the flock of sheep to break free of flock mentality and become individuals. Nor is there a need to change from what I believe, to an idea popular with the "flock".
I blaze my own trails.
No to War!
hoppy;1239854 wrote: When one knows they are right, as I am, there is no need to to try to convince the flock of sheep to break free of flock mentality and become individuals. Nor is there a need to change from what I believe, to an idea popular with the "flock".
I blaze my own trails.
If you are so right then it no effort to prove it.
As it is, when asked for an explanation you just disappear.
I blaze my own trails.
If you are so right then it no effort to prove it.
As it is, when asked for an explanation you just disappear.
No to War!
Bryn Mawr;1239855 wrote: If you are so right then it no effort to prove it.
As it is, when asked for an explanation you just disappear.
See how you are? Some of us can't spend the whole day poking through back threads, nit-picking every little detail.
Know what I think of people who constantly ask for proof and explanations? I think those people must be called liars so much that they think everyone else is too. I have to go now and squeeze the pee out of Mr. Johnson. Good day sir.
As it is, when asked for an explanation you just disappear.
See how you are? Some of us can't spend the whole day poking through back threads, nit-picking every little detail.
Know what I think of people who constantly ask for proof and explanations? I think those people must be called liars so much that they think everyone else is too. I have to go now and squeeze the pee out of Mr. Johnson. Good day sir.
No to War!
gmc;1232488 wrote: So if your country attacks another that poses no threat to you do you believe that people should not be allowed to protest or refuse to fight? What kind of country is america-is it one where people have to do what they are told by their government or one where people are allowed to disagree and object to what is done in their name. It kind of sounds like you would prefer to live in a totalitarian state where freedom of speech and action is not allowed.
In ww2 for the first two years most of america said no and large sections of it cheered on the nazis and your politicians did their best to stop Roosevelt selling arms to the british even if they were being sold at exorbitant prices to a nation fighting for it's very existence and your ambassador was gleefully predicting the defeat of the british. Those few of your countrymen who came across to fight lost their american nationality for daring to fight in another country's armed forces. WW2 is a very bad example for an american to use cos it was no thanks to you that we held of the nazis from invading britain and you only got involved when it finally dawned on you that there was a lot at stake and maybe your own interests could be served by getting involved.
Veitnam-having got rid of their colonial masters made the mistake of electing a left wing government and the US went in to prop up a right wing regime in the name of defending freedom. In iraq and iran you destabilised democratic governments that had the nerve to want to nationalise the oil fields and replaced then with dictators in Afghanistan you trained and armed the Taliban so they could defeat their soviet oppressors and now you are fighting another war there in the name of freedom and democracy. The irony of it all completely escapes you doesn't it? Or is it just you trust your leaders and do what you are told?
1. I've always believed in our freedoms. We Americans are experiencing an administration that would happily stifle free speech and many other freedoms.
2. Yeah, we tried to stay out of WW2. Look how some of you are carrying on about how we are fighting terrorists. No, large sections of America were not cheering on the nazis. Some were, but some always cheer on the enemy. We sold you arms at exorbitant prices? You can supply figures? Cost per rifle maybe?
3. I'm not as up on the gulf wars as you think you are. One of my sons fought in both of them. I hope you two never meet.
Your whole post was an example of America bashing.
In ww2 for the first two years most of america said no and large sections of it cheered on the nazis and your politicians did their best to stop Roosevelt selling arms to the british even if they were being sold at exorbitant prices to a nation fighting for it's very existence and your ambassador was gleefully predicting the defeat of the british. Those few of your countrymen who came across to fight lost their american nationality for daring to fight in another country's armed forces. WW2 is a very bad example for an american to use cos it was no thanks to you that we held of the nazis from invading britain and you only got involved when it finally dawned on you that there was a lot at stake and maybe your own interests could be served by getting involved.
Veitnam-having got rid of their colonial masters made the mistake of electing a left wing government and the US went in to prop up a right wing regime in the name of defending freedom. In iraq and iran you destabilised democratic governments that had the nerve to want to nationalise the oil fields and replaced then with dictators in Afghanistan you trained and armed the Taliban so they could defeat their soviet oppressors and now you are fighting another war there in the name of freedom and democracy. The irony of it all completely escapes you doesn't it? Or is it just you trust your leaders and do what you are told?
1. I've always believed in our freedoms. We Americans are experiencing an administration that would happily stifle free speech and many other freedoms.
2. Yeah, we tried to stay out of WW2. Look how some of you are carrying on about how we are fighting terrorists. No, large sections of America were not cheering on the nazis. Some were, but some always cheer on the enemy. We sold you arms at exorbitant prices? You can supply figures? Cost per rifle maybe?
3. I'm not as up on the gulf wars as you think you are. One of my sons fought in both of them. I hope you two never meet.
Your whole post was an example of America bashing.
No to War!
hoppy;1239854 wrote: When one knows they are right, as I am, there is no need to to try to convince the flock of sheep to break free of flock mentality and become individuals. Nor is there a need to change from what I believe, to an idea popular with the "flock".
I blaze my own trails.
It's the one who never questions that has the flock mentality. Freedom comes from the odd one at the back of the crowd shouting hang on why are we doing this not those that are convinced we should all follow the leader or that to question is unpatriotic. I would suggest not to question your government is unamerican but it seems when it comes to war very few do and those who do so are condemned as traitors.
posted by hoppy
I'm not as up on the gulf area as you think you are. One of my sons fought in both gulf wars. I hope the two of you never meet.
This whole post of yours was America bashing, which you say you don't do.
Why what's he going to do? As someone who lives in a supposedly free country he must be used to the concept that threats and intimidation will not silence one who believes in freedom of speech.
I can back up every bit of that post if you want me to but facts seem to be something you are not particularly interested in. If you have an issue with anything that you regard as simply american bashing why don't you point out the factual inaccuracies. If you feel you want to point out the less than honourable part the british have played in all of this then by all means do so. It wouldn't be viewed as british bashing for the sake of it if it was accurate-who knows we might even agree about a lot of it. It has been suggested that it was the british that finagled the yanks into deposing the iraqi government and putting in saddam and also deposing the iranian govt and replacing it with the shah because they wanted to nationalise the oil fields and take the assets from mainly-at the time British-oil companies. I can back that up as well if you want. It was an american that suggested it but I can't find the link the moment. Oil's been at the back of everything in the middle east-it still is, the religious aspect is just a rallying point.
The difference would be we can discuss issues like this without assuming all criticism is mindless brit bashing. You need to become more british-we don't actually care what johnny foreigner thinks
As it happens I know several who have been in the gulf wars-I have a nephew who will be out there next year in afghanistan, he's hoping that the taliban he meets will be the ones trained by the american special forces as they are apparently not as competent as the ones trained by the SAS.
Besides the original post is in a part of the forum entitled england-we're both slumming
I blaze my own trails.
It's the one who never questions that has the flock mentality. Freedom comes from the odd one at the back of the crowd shouting hang on why are we doing this not those that are convinced we should all follow the leader or that to question is unpatriotic. I would suggest not to question your government is unamerican but it seems when it comes to war very few do and those who do so are condemned as traitors.
posted by hoppy
I'm not as up on the gulf area as you think you are. One of my sons fought in both gulf wars. I hope the two of you never meet.
This whole post of yours was America bashing, which you say you don't do.
Why what's he going to do? As someone who lives in a supposedly free country he must be used to the concept that threats and intimidation will not silence one who believes in freedom of speech.
I can back up every bit of that post if you want me to but facts seem to be something you are not particularly interested in. If you have an issue with anything that you regard as simply american bashing why don't you point out the factual inaccuracies. If you feel you want to point out the less than honourable part the british have played in all of this then by all means do so. It wouldn't be viewed as british bashing for the sake of it if it was accurate-who knows we might even agree about a lot of it. It has been suggested that it was the british that finagled the yanks into deposing the iraqi government and putting in saddam and also deposing the iranian govt and replacing it with the shah because they wanted to nationalise the oil fields and take the assets from mainly-at the time British-oil companies. I can back that up as well if you want. It was an american that suggested it but I can't find the link the moment. Oil's been at the back of everything in the middle east-it still is, the religious aspect is just a rallying point.
The difference would be we can discuss issues like this without assuming all criticism is mindless brit bashing. You need to become more british-we don't actually care what johnny foreigner thinks
As it happens I know several who have been in the gulf wars-I have a nephew who will be out there next year in afghanistan, he's hoping that the taliban he meets will be the ones trained by the american special forces as they are apparently not as competent as the ones trained by the SAS.
Besides the original post is in a part of the forum entitled england-we're both slumming
No to War!
gmc;1239873 wrote: It's the one who never questions that has the flock mentality. Freedom comes from the odd one at the back of the crowd shouting hang on why are we doing this not those that are convinced we should all follow the leader or that to question is unpatriotic. I would suggest not to question your government is unamerican but it seems when it comes to war very few do and those who do so are condemned as traitors.
posted by hoppy
Why what's he going to do? As someone who lives in a supposedly free country he must be used to the concept that threats and intimidation will not silence one who believes in freedom of speech.
I can back up every bit of that post if you want me to but facts seem to be something you are not particularly interested in. If you have an issue with anything that you regard as simply american bashing why don't you point out the factual inaccuracies. If you feel you want to point out the less than honourable part the british have played in all of this then by all means do so. It wouldn't be viewed as british bashing for the sake of it if it was accurate-who knows we might even agree about a lot of it. It has been suggested that it was the british that finagled the yanks into deposing the iraqi government and putting in saddam and also deposing the iranian govt and replacing it with the shah because they wanted to nationalise the oil fields and take the assets from mainly-at the time British-oil companies. I can back that up as well if you want. It was an american that suggested it but I can't find the link the moment. Oil's been at the back of everything in the middle east-it still is, the religious aspect is just a rallying point.
The difference would be we can discuss issues like this without assuming all criticism is mindless brit bashing. You need to become more british-we don't actually care what johnny foreigner thinks
As it happens I know several who have been in the gulf wars-I have a nephew who will be out there next year in afghanistan, he's hoping that the taliban he meets will be the ones trained by the american special forces as they are apparently not as competent as the ones trained by the SAS.
Besides the original post is in a part of the forum entitled england-we're both slumming
NOW who's avoiding giving answers? :yh_rotfl
As to what my son would do had you met. He's a 23+ years of service warrior with quite a bit of combat. You are free to say anything you want to him, and suffer the consequences. Sometimes he just walks away. The last time I went to a bar with him, he beat the snot out of some Joe college liberal 'crat pacifist. I had to bail him out of jail and that bar won't let either of us in again.
And as far as belatedly, in your opinion, entering WW2, I like to think you were being punished for selling out the Czech's.
posted by hoppy
Why what's he going to do? As someone who lives in a supposedly free country he must be used to the concept that threats and intimidation will not silence one who believes in freedom of speech.
I can back up every bit of that post if you want me to but facts seem to be something you are not particularly interested in. If you have an issue with anything that you regard as simply american bashing why don't you point out the factual inaccuracies. If you feel you want to point out the less than honourable part the british have played in all of this then by all means do so. It wouldn't be viewed as british bashing for the sake of it if it was accurate-who knows we might even agree about a lot of it. It has been suggested that it was the british that finagled the yanks into deposing the iraqi government and putting in saddam and also deposing the iranian govt and replacing it with the shah because they wanted to nationalise the oil fields and take the assets from mainly-at the time British-oil companies. I can back that up as well if you want. It was an american that suggested it but I can't find the link the moment. Oil's been at the back of everything in the middle east-it still is, the religious aspect is just a rallying point.
The difference would be we can discuss issues like this without assuming all criticism is mindless brit bashing. You need to become more british-we don't actually care what johnny foreigner thinks
As it happens I know several who have been in the gulf wars-I have a nephew who will be out there next year in afghanistan, he's hoping that the taliban he meets will be the ones trained by the american special forces as they are apparently not as competent as the ones trained by the SAS.
Besides the original post is in a part of the forum entitled england-we're both slumming
NOW who's avoiding giving answers? :yh_rotfl
As to what my son would do had you met. He's a 23+ years of service warrior with quite a bit of combat. You are free to say anything you want to him, and suffer the consequences. Sometimes he just walks away. The last time I went to a bar with him, he beat the snot out of some Joe college liberal 'crat pacifist. I had to bail him out of jail and that bar won't let either of us in again.
And as far as belatedly, in your opinion, entering WW2, I like to think you were being punished for selling out the Czech's.
No to War!
hoppy;1239884 wrote: NOW who's avoiding giving answers? :yh_rotfl
The answer is 42. What was your question?:D
but since you ask-presumably seriously
Jacques R. Pauwels | Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler | Labour/Le Travail, 51 | The History Cooperative
CHAPTER SIX: Henry Ford and the Nazis
Henry Ford was also the most famous of Hitler's foreign backers, and he was rewarded in the 1930s for this long-lasting support with the highest Nazi decoration for foreigners.
This Nazi favor aroused a storm of controversy in the United States and ultimately degenerated into an exchange of diplomatic notes between the German Government and the State Department. While Ford publicly protested that he did not like totalitarian governments, we find in practice that Ford knowingly profited from both sides of World War II — from French and German plants producing vehicles at a profit for the Wehrmacht, and from U.S. plants building vehicles at a profit for the U.S. Army.
Have a look at what US banks were up to.
World War II campaigns -- Arsenal of Democracy Lend Lease
You bled us dry squeezing every penny you could. OK we weren't allies at the beginning but the help was very grudging in some quarters. by the end of the war we were bankrupt-actually we still are.
http://800poundgorilla.100webspace.net/ ... 7155654714
Voyage of the St. Louis
Charles Lindbergh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During his January 23, 1941, testimony before The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Lindbergh recommended the United States negotiate a neutrality pact with Germany.
In a speech at an America First rally in Des Moines on September 11, 1941, "Who Are the War Agitators?" Lindbergh claimed the three groups, "pressing this country toward war [are] the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt Administration" and said of Jewish groups,
"Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation."[64]
In the speech, he warned of the Jewish People's "large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government", and went on to say of Germany's antisemitism, "No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany." Lindbergh declared,
OK I was slightly wrong about kennedy he finally came round and most of the people seemed broadly supportive but a lot of your establishment were very hostile and pro nazi and did their best to prevent any help being given. A fair chunk of them given half a chance would have locked up all the liberals calling for more rights, But face up to it if we depended on the states in 1939 we'd have had it.
It's not the america first crowd and their ilk you owe your freedom to. Your history is full of stories of people who stood up for themselves against big corporations, big banks, big government-liberals as you call them who were prepared to question what they were told. Even today they would silence the opposition to war and the growth of corporate power if they could, tree hugging environmentalist-make them sound like nutters if you can't counter their argument-but they might if people like you don't question.
The answer is 42. What was your question?:D
but since you ask-presumably seriously
Jacques R. Pauwels | Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler | Labour/Le Travail, 51 | The History Cooperative
CHAPTER SIX: Henry Ford and the Nazis
Henry Ford was also the most famous of Hitler's foreign backers, and he was rewarded in the 1930s for this long-lasting support with the highest Nazi decoration for foreigners.
This Nazi favor aroused a storm of controversy in the United States and ultimately degenerated into an exchange of diplomatic notes between the German Government and the State Department. While Ford publicly protested that he did not like totalitarian governments, we find in practice that Ford knowingly profited from both sides of World War II — from French and German plants producing vehicles at a profit for the Wehrmacht, and from U.S. plants building vehicles at a profit for the U.S. Army.
Have a look at what US banks were up to.
World War II campaigns -- Arsenal of Democracy Lend Lease
You bled us dry squeezing every penny you could. OK we weren't allies at the beginning but the help was very grudging in some quarters. by the end of the war we were bankrupt-actually we still are.
http://800poundgorilla.100webspace.net/ ... 7155654714
Voyage of the St. Louis
Charles Lindbergh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
During his January 23, 1941, testimony before The House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Lindbergh recommended the United States negotiate a neutrality pact with Germany.
In a speech at an America First rally in Des Moines on September 11, 1941, "Who Are the War Agitators?" Lindbergh claimed the three groups, "pressing this country toward war [are] the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt Administration" and said of Jewish groups,
"Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation."[64]
In the speech, he warned of the Jewish People's "large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government", and went on to say of Germany's antisemitism, "No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany." Lindbergh declared,
OK I was slightly wrong about kennedy he finally came round and most of the people seemed broadly supportive but a lot of your establishment were very hostile and pro nazi and did their best to prevent any help being given. A fair chunk of them given half a chance would have locked up all the liberals calling for more rights, But face up to it if we depended on the states in 1939 we'd have had it.
It's not the america first crowd and their ilk you owe your freedom to. Your history is full of stories of people who stood up for themselves against big corporations, big banks, big government-liberals as you call them who were prepared to question what they were told. Even today they would silence the opposition to war and the growth of corporate power if they could, tree hugging environmentalist-make them sound like nutters if you can't counter their argument-but they might if people like you don't question.
No to War!
gmc;1239900 wrote: The answer is 42. What was your question?:D
but since you ask-presumably seriously
Jacques R. Pauwels | Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler | Labour/Le Travail, 51 | The History Cooperative
CHAPTER SIX: Henry Ford and the Nazis
Have a look at what US banks were up to.
World War II campaigns -- Arsenal of Democracy Lend Lease
You bled us dry squeezing every penny you could. OK we weren't allies at the beginning but the help was very grudging in some quarters. by the end of the war we were bankrupt-actually we still are.
The 800 Pound Gorilla - Joe Kennedy on WWII
Voyage of the St. Louis
Charles Lindbergh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OK I was slightly wrong about kennedy he finally came round and most of the people seemed broadly supportive but a lot of your establishment were very hostile and pro nazi and did their best to prevent any help being given. A fair chunk of them given half a chance would have locked up all the liberals calling for more rights, But face up to it if we depended on the states in 1939 we'd have had it.
It's not the america first crowd and their ilk you owe your freedom to. Your history is full of stories of people who stood up for themselves against big corporations, big banks, big government-liberals as you call them who were prepared to question what they were told. Even today they would silence the opposition to war and the growth of corporate power if they could, tree hugging environmentalist-make them sound like nutters if you can't counter their argument-but they might if people like you don't question.
I thank you for your effort. We know how some coporate leaders stink. We're seeing it every day. It don't seem to matter who gets voted in. In my opinion, it's going to take a huge upheaval of some sort, to right things.
but since you ask-presumably seriously
Jacques R. Pauwels | Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler | Labour/Le Travail, 51 | The History Cooperative
CHAPTER SIX: Henry Ford and the Nazis
Have a look at what US banks were up to.
World War II campaigns -- Arsenal of Democracy Lend Lease
You bled us dry squeezing every penny you could. OK we weren't allies at the beginning but the help was very grudging in some quarters. by the end of the war we were bankrupt-actually we still are.
The 800 Pound Gorilla - Joe Kennedy on WWII
Voyage of the St. Louis
Charles Lindbergh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
OK I was slightly wrong about kennedy he finally came round and most of the people seemed broadly supportive but a lot of your establishment were very hostile and pro nazi and did their best to prevent any help being given. A fair chunk of them given half a chance would have locked up all the liberals calling for more rights, But face up to it if we depended on the states in 1939 we'd have had it.
It's not the america first crowd and their ilk you owe your freedom to. Your history is full of stories of people who stood up for themselves against big corporations, big banks, big government-liberals as you call them who were prepared to question what they were told. Even today they would silence the opposition to war and the growth of corporate power if they could, tree hugging environmentalist-make them sound like nutters if you can't counter their argument-but they might if people like you don't question.
I thank you for your effort. We know how some coporate leaders stink. We're seeing it every day. It don't seem to matter who gets voted in. In my opinion, it's going to take a huge upheaval of some sort, to right things.
No to War!
hoppy;1239903 wrote: I thank you for your effort. We know how some coporate leaders stink. We're seeing it every day. It don't seem to matter who gets voted in. In my opinion, it's going to take a huge upheaval of some sort, to right things.
I knew it, at heart you're a closet revolutionary. :sneaky:Actually we've got similar problems a party in power with less than 30% of the vote but 100% of the power and a financial establishment that go bankrupt and still want bonuses. Proportional representation seems to have made a big difference in the democratic primaries-although I haven't looked in to it much. It's made a difference here-the labour party wet itself at the result of the last election for the scottish parliament.
I don't understand why things like this don't have Americans in these areas reaching for their guns.
YouTube - Mountaintop Removal Section of "The Appalachians" Part 2
So who gets to decide what is worth fighting for?
I knew it, at heart you're a closet revolutionary. :sneaky:Actually we've got similar problems a party in power with less than 30% of the vote but 100% of the power and a financial establishment that go bankrupt and still want bonuses. Proportional representation seems to have made a big difference in the democratic primaries-although I haven't looked in to it much. It's made a difference here-the labour party wet itself at the result of the last election for the scottish parliament.
I don't understand why things like this don't have Americans in these areas reaching for their guns.
YouTube - Mountaintop Removal Section of "The Appalachians" Part 2
So who gets to decide what is worth fighting for?
No to War!
hoppy;1239857 wrote: See how you are? Some of us can't spend the whole day poking through back threads, nit-picking every little detail.
Know what I think of people who constantly ask for proof and explanations? I think those people must be called liars so much that they think everyone else is too. I have to go now and squeeze the pee out of Mr. Johnson. Good day sir.
Back threads? I respond to what is in front of me.
If you think I'm a liar then show me where
Make your accusations plain and clear Sir - I lie to no-one.
Know what I think of people who constantly ask for proof and explanations? I think those people must be called liars so much that they think everyone else is too. I have to go now and squeeze the pee out of Mr. Johnson. Good day sir.
Back threads? I respond to what is in front of me.
If you think I'm a liar then show me where
Make your accusations plain and clear Sir - I lie to no-one.
No to War!
Bryn Mawr;1240145 wrote: Back threads? I respond to what is in front of me.
If you think I'm a liar then show me where
Make your accusations plain and clear Sir - I lie to no-one.
Didn't say I thought you was a liar.
If you think I'm a liar then show me where
Make your accusations plain and clear Sir - I lie to no-one.
Didn't say I thought you was a liar.
No to War!
hoppy;1239857 wrote: See how you are? Some of us can't spend the whole day poking through back threads, nit-picking every little detail.
Know what I think of people who constantly ask for proof and explanations? I think those people must be called liars so much that they think everyone else is too. I have to go now and squeeze the pee out of Mr. Johnson. Good day sir.
hoppy;1240170 wrote: Didn't say I thought you was a liar.
No? Would you care to explain what you intended to convey by the highlighted section?
Know what I think of people who constantly ask for proof and explanations? I think those people must be called liars so much that they think everyone else is too. I have to go now and squeeze the pee out of Mr. Johnson. Good day sir.
hoppy;1240170 wrote: Didn't say I thought you was a liar.
No? Would you care to explain what you intended to convey by the highlighted section?
No to War!
Don't know about bryn but I used to find that when discoursing with people about politics, particularly as it happens those of a far left wing disposition would make up statistics to support their arguments. To begin with you assume people do not bullshit, once you do asking someone to prove their assertion becomes a natural response. it works the other way round as well-if you have an opinion or viewpoint radically different from someone it's only reasonable they ask you to be able to back up what they have stated. It's how we learn. You might not agree with the other person but perhaps you will end up with a better understanding of why they think the way they do and more importantly why you think the way you do.
posted by hoppy
I thank you for your effort. We know how some coporate leaders stink. We're seeing it every day. It don't seem to matter who gets voted in. In my opinion, it's going to take a huge upheaval of some sort, to right things.
So what are you suggesting, some kind of mass revolt with the people seizing back control? You and I both live in countries where there are democratic institutions and mechanisms-albeit flawed to bring about change. If you live in a country where there is no such outlet then you do get upheaval, revolution call it what you will become more likely, political or religious extremes become the outlet for dissent. Some regimes like the saudi one encourage religious extremes it as it deflects attention from the real problems, sooner or later it will blow up in their face. If you have a successful revolution the leaders have often conned people and end up hanging on for grim death and the classic way is to find an outside enemy that will unite a country behind them-like iran- but it's not working because they can't any more stop people finding out what is happening in other countries. But if they are attacked the whole country will forget differences and swing in behind the leaders.
Left alone Saddam's regime would probably have ended by now anyway, the first gulf war was necessary perhaps but the second? He had bugger all to do with 911 but it was used as an excuse to go to war IMO. We got sucked in to it and that is our problem.
Democracy seems to be reasserting itself in Pakistan but no thanks to the west supporting a military dictator. The taliban would eventually **** off most of their population-extreme religious rule always does. You can find plenty Christians that would like to have a kind of religious dictatorship if given half a chance with people whose lifestyles-or even hairstyles they don't like.
When someone says let's go to war, and no offence intended, only a complete idiot would just say OK let's go the country needs us. You're a free man that means you have a right to say no unless you can be convinced of the need.
posted by hoppy
I thank you for your effort. We know how some coporate leaders stink. We're seeing it every day. It don't seem to matter who gets voted in. In my opinion, it's going to take a huge upheaval of some sort, to right things.
So what are you suggesting, some kind of mass revolt with the people seizing back control? You and I both live in countries where there are democratic institutions and mechanisms-albeit flawed to bring about change. If you live in a country where there is no such outlet then you do get upheaval, revolution call it what you will become more likely, political or religious extremes become the outlet for dissent. Some regimes like the saudi one encourage religious extremes it as it deflects attention from the real problems, sooner or later it will blow up in their face. If you have a successful revolution the leaders have often conned people and end up hanging on for grim death and the classic way is to find an outside enemy that will unite a country behind them-like iran- but it's not working because they can't any more stop people finding out what is happening in other countries. But if they are attacked the whole country will forget differences and swing in behind the leaders.
Left alone Saddam's regime would probably have ended by now anyway, the first gulf war was necessary perhaps but the second? He had bugger all to do with 911 but it was used as an excuse to go to war IMO. We got sucked in to it and that is our problem.
Democracy seems to be reasserting itself in Pakistan but no thanks to the west supporting a military dictator. The taliban would eventually **** off most of their population-extreme religious rule always does. You can find plenty Christians that would like to have a kind of religious dictatorship if given half a chance with people whose lifestyles-or even hairstyles they don't like.
When someone says let's go to war, and no offence intended, only a complete idiot would just say OK let's go the country needs us. You're a free man that means you have a right to say no unless you can be convinced of the need.
No to War!
Democracy seems to be reasserting itself in Pakistan but no thanks to the west supporting a military dictator. The taliban would eventually **** off most of their population-extreme religious rule always does. You can find plenty Christians that would like to have a kind of religious dictatorship if given half a chance with people whose lifestyles-or even hairstyles they don't like.
Ya know, if it were'nt for the climate there, I'd feel right at home in the so called "bible belt". But, I like the cold, snowy winters of the North. I've not felt right since my state's governor allowed gay "marriage". If I was even 20 years younger I'd be so outa my state now.
Ya know, if it were'nt for the climate there, I'd feel right at home in the so called "bible belt". But, I like the cold, snowy winters of the North. I've not felt right since my state's governor allowed gay "marriage". If I was even 20 years younger I'd be so outa my state now.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
No to War!
Now we are on the subject of the Taliban.... what the heck are we fighting these 'Valient freedom Fighters' (If I remember Reagan's quote correctly) for? The Russians couldn't beat them for gods sake.
As I recall, Hans Blix told Blair and Bush he needed another 3 weeks to prove without doubt that Iraq did not have WMD's. This was blatently ignored and we invaded. On Britains part due to Blair lying to the public that Sadam had weapons that could reach the UK within 45 minutes.
Is it not against the geneva Convention still to invade a soveriegn state?
Bush and Blair should be charged with war crimes and no less.
As I also recall, Bush gave Afghan just 3 weeks to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11 when general Intelligence believed that he was long gone over the borders to Pakistan or Syria if he was Indeed there in the first place. Here we are 5 years later and no closer to Bin Laden which Bush claimed was the reason to invade Afghan.
As I recall, Hans Blix told Blair and Bush he needed another 3 weeks to prove without doubt that Iraq did not have WMD's. This was blatently ignored and we invaded. On Britains part due to Blair lying to the public that Sadam had weapons that could reach the UK within 45 minutes.
Is it not against the geneva Convention still to invade a soveriegn state?
Bush and Blair should be charged with war crimes and no less.
As I also recall, Bush gave Afghan just 3 weeks to hand over Bin Laden after 9/11 when general Intelligence believed that he was long gone over the borders to Pakistan or Syria if he was Indeed there in the first place. Here we are 5 years later and no closer to Bin Laden which Bush claimed was the reason to invade Afghan.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
No to War!
hoppy;1240232 wrote: Democracy seems to be reasserting itself in Pakistan but no thanks to the west supporting a military dictator. The taliban would eventually **** off most of their population-extreme religious rule always does. You can find plenty Christians that would like to have a kind of religious dictatorship if given half a chance with people whose lifestyles-or even hairstyles they don't like.
Ya know, if it were'nt for the climate there, I'd feel right at home in the so called "bible belt". But, I like the cold, snowy winters of the North. I've not felt right since my state's governor allowed gay "marriage". If I was even 20 years younger I'd be so outa my state now.
As a free thinker that believes in free speech I suspect I would be in deep trouble in the bible belt if I wasn't careful. I would not tolerate someone telling me I cannot express my opinion of religion. Don't care what people believe and would indeed defend their right to their faith but I object when they try and claim no one should question their beliefs or object to them being forced on others.
So long as you don't have to kiss the bride why does it bother you? does it somehow make you less religious or your religious belief less real to you because others don't share it? If some churches will allow it you don't have to join them, pick another. Most of the troubles in the world it seems like are caused by one religious group that believes their way is the right and only way and are ready to smite those who disagree on behalf of the one and only god. Would you say no to war if it was called for as part of a crusade/jihad. If a priest told you to make war on all gays would you do it
YouTube - Gay Scientists Have Isolated the Christian Gene!
We're going off topic here aren't we
Ya know, if it were'nt for the climate there, I'd feel right at home in the so called "bible belt". But, I like the cold, snowy winters of the North. I've not felt right since my state's governor allowed gay "marriage". If I was even 20 years younger I'd be so outa my state now.
As a free thinker that believes in free speech I suspect I would be in deep trouble in the bible belt if I wasn't careful. I would not tolerate someone telling me I cannot express my opinion of religion. Don't care what people believe and would indeed defend their right to their faith but I object when they try and claim no one should question their beliefs or object to them being forced on others.
So long as you don't have to kiss the bride why does it bother you? does it somehow make you less religious or your religious belief less real to you because others don't share it? If some churches will allow it you don't have to join them, pick another. Most of the troubles in the world it seems like are caused by one religious group that believes their way is the right and only way and are ready to smite those who disagree on behalf of the one and only god. Would you say no to war if it was called for as part of a crusade/jihad. If a priest told you to make war on all gays would you do it
YouTube - Gay Scientists Have Isolated the Christian Gene!
We're going off topic here aren't we
No to War!
gmc;1240289 wrote: As a free thinker that believes in free speech I suspect I would be in deep trouble in the bible belt if I wasn't careful. I would not tolerate someone telling me I cannot express my opinion of religion. Don't care what people believe and would indeed defend their right to their faith but I object when they try and claim no one should question their beliefs or object to them being forced on others.
So long as you don't have to kiss the bride why does it bother you? does it somehow make you less religious or your religious belief less real to you because others don't share it? If some churches will allow it you don't have to join them, pick another. Most of the troubles in the world it seems like are caused by one religious group that believes their way is the right and only way and are ready to smite those who disagree on behalf of the one and only god. Would you say no to war if it was called for as part of a crusade/jihad. If a priest told you to make war on all gays would you do it
YouTube - Gay Scientists Have Isolated the Christian Gene!
We're going off topic here aren't we
So, you tolerate complacency? Complacency is deadly.
So long as you don't have to kiss the bride why does it bother you? does it somehow make you less religious or your religious belief less real to you because others don't share it? If some churches will allow it you don't have to join them, pick another. Most of the troubles in the world it seems like are caused by one religious group that believes their way is the right and only way and are ready to smite those who disagree on behalf of the one and only god. Would you say no to war if it was called for as part of a crusade/jihad. If a priest told you to make war on all gays would you do it
YouTube - Gay Scientists Have Isolated the Christian Gene!
We're going off topic here aren't we
So, you tolerate complacency? Complacency is deadly.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
No to War!
ok then folks........ go ahead and Ignore my post.
Oscar leaves the room In disgust and stamps her foot.
Oscar leaves the room In disgust and stamps her foot.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
No to War!
oscar;1240295 wrote: ok then folks........ go ahead and Ignore my post.
Oscar leaves the room In disgust and stamps her foot.
Bin Laden? I think he's a dead usetawas. Like a pinched camel flea.
Oscar leaves the room In disgust and stamps her foot.
Bin Laden? I think he's a dead usetawas. Like a pinched camel flea.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
No to War!
hoppy;1240297 wrote: Bin Laden? I think he's a dead usetawas. Like a pinched camel flea. thanks Hops... I had a feeling he was long dead.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
No to War!
hoppy;1240293 wrote: So, you tolerate complacency? Complacency is deadly.
have you not worked oput by now that I have no tolerance for bigots-religious or any other kind
have you not worked oput by now that I have no tolerance for bigots-religious or any other kind