Bigmouth

[sesame]

Ann Hart Coulter.
She is an American syndicated columnist, popular TV face, aggrasive critic. And I think that she has got a very big foul mouth! I also consider her a religious bigot. Ah, and she is a staunch "Christian-Republican"!

Her quotes:

1) About 9/11 widows: These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.

2) I don't know if [former U.S. President Bill Clinton is] gay. But [former U.S. Vice President] Al Gore - total fag.

3) The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill. I don't want to suggest that Al's getting big, but the last time I saw him on TV I thought, "That reminds me - we have to do something about saving the polar bears."

4) Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.

5) Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.

6) On Muslims: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war. (sept 12, 2001)

7) Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist"; "I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties"; "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. Jan 2005

8) [Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

9) About Obama: a question on reparations has got to be confusing when you're half-white and half-black. What do you do? Demand an apology for slavery and money from yourself? I guess biracial reparations would involve sending yourself money, then sending back a portion of that money to yourself, minus 50 percent in processing fees - which is the same way federal aid works.

10) There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats

11) About 2004 Democratic Convention: Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

12) About Democrats:
New Idea for Abortion Party: Aid the Enemy
There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

13) In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party so ridiculous as today's Democrats. It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc.

14) Anti-gay: I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot", so I - so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards.

15) For six years, the Bush administration has kept America safe from another terrorist attack, allowing the Democrats to claim that the war on terrorism is a fraud, a "bumper sticker," a sneaky ploy by a power-mad president to create an apocryphal enemy so he could spy on innocent librarians in Wisconsin. And that's the view of the moderate Democrats. The rest of them think Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks

16) Anti-Conservationist: The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet - it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars - that's the Biblical view.

17) On Bush: The man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents. June 2008

18) we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. ... That's what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. ...That is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews.

19) So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.

20) On Princess Diana: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---

[rhythmic delivery]

she sounds charming, a great dinner party guest no doubt.

[sesame]

Yeah, she is sure to blow some fuses in people's brains.
She is the catalyst for hot arguments.
8) [Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent. Ila wont like it! ;)
Bush is the savoir of America, says she. And Princess Diana was pathetic and lesser than herself (Ann Coulter)! And if you are divorced and dating, you've got no character!

[FoxySarah]

8) [Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.


The only time Canada and the United States were on opposite sides during a war, Canada (As part of the British Empire), not only won, but razed the American Capitol to the ground.

Further more, today, Canadian troops are much, much better trained than American troops. The average Canadian Corporal is a better, more experienced soldier than an American Sergeant. With superior training and leadership, the only advantage the US military has is sheer numbers (Our equipment rates about the same quality).

During a training exercise with Canadian troops, a Platoon of US Navy SEALS, some of the United States' most elite soldiers were captured by the 2nd Royal Canadian Regiment Pipes and Drums. That's correct. The US' best troops were captured in wargames by a Canadian MARCHING BAND.

I think we Canucks are *quite* safe from any threats from the south.

[CuriousJim]

If it wasn't for the city that I live in, America wouldn't have been discovered until much later, and it could have been a whole different country.

As Jeremy Clarskon said "I'm sure that some Americans are actually starting to mate with vegtables".

This woman sounds as if she would be at home in Germany, 1919-1945.

[St. Araqiel]

Ah, the terminally unhappy Paris Hilton of politics...how I hate her so.

[Ogryn1313]

The only time Canada and the United States were on opposite sides during a war, Canada (As part of the British Empire), not only won, but razed the American Capitol to the ground.

Further more, today, Canadian troops are much, much better trained than American troops. The average Canadian Corporal is a better, more experienced soldier than an American Sergeant. With superior training and leadership, the only advantage the US military has is sheer numbers (Our equipment rates about the same quality).

During a training exercise with Canadian troops, a Platoon of US Navy SEALS, some of the United States' most elite soldiers were captured by the 2nd Royal Canadian Regiment Pipes and Drums. That's correct. The US' best troops were captured in wargames by a Canadian MARCHING BAND.

I think we Canucks are *quite* safe from any threats from the south.


Um, no offense but Canada's military is inferior to America's. Don't think so little of our training. We have excellent soldiers serving in several distinguished divisions and the like. Also, no other nation has the technoligical edge of our military. We are operating the world's best battle tank and only the British Challenger rivals it. The most advanced warships and the world's most advanced fighter, the Raptor, and the best ground support beast, the almighty A-10 Warthog. No armor can survive it's onslaught! Even down to lesser weapons, such as various man portable weapons are superior. Plus, our military has more money to spend than most other nations. And, to my knowledge, no other nation possesses such a refined rapid deployment ability that enables us to move troops to any warzone within 24 hours of the order given!

But, in fairness, I know well Canadian snipers are some of the finest in the world and they performed quite well in Afghanistan. I also know Canada, despite being a nation of hockey pucks (teasing so don't beat me to death) have had a proud military history and always answered the call of duty when needed.

But seriously, America, if we wanted to, would roll over yas!
But we love your Canadian bacon which really is just ham and has an erroneous name. And the women are lovely.

I happen to love Ann Coulter and can't see why she gets so much hate, on another note. She's controversial. But because she's right wing she is hated as most of the American and foreign media are dominated by liberal or far left ideologues. What Coulter does is no different than the vile hate mongers on websites like The Daily Kos, Arianna Huffington's garbage site, Media Matters or Moveon do. Only, the far left has the virtue of being in the majority of the media. Coulter is just a highly vocal member of a minority who doesn't get equal nor fair media representation as secular progressives, lefties and their ilk get. But, if one would but be objective they'd see she's just the same as any other controversial figure and the hatred lavished on her is often based on an ideological and ignorant bias of the hater who cannot accept opposing views.

[sesame]

1) Republican Alan Keyes announced that "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama."

2) Bushy baby's (George Bush) principle of action is not as simple as: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." Its rather like: "God works through Christians; I am a Christian; Furthermore, I am the President! My decision is ABC; therefore, God's decision must be ABC."

3) Do the Bushy side really believe in government by divine guidance? Does the president think that God speaks through him! May be he thinks of himself as a knight in blazing armour, riding with his sword held high, in a crusade once again after centuries! His personal quest to recapture the Holy Land (Oil) ;) .

4) Barack Obama on the other hand, is not too religious. His dad, born a muslim, became an atheist in adulthood, his mother was spiritual, but doubted organised religion; his grandparents nonpracticing Protestants, you dont find a crucifix tattooed on Obama's forehead! He says, "Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.... The questions I had didn't magically disappear (by Divine intervention)... how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy." On a funny note, "This debate about tax cuts reminds me of that verse from the Book of Hebrews." :D

[GRH]

That we should argue over something with our brethren that is as divisive as military fortification speaks to our current society. It pains me to see us argue about who has the more effective "killing machine" that is funded by tax dollars.

Sesame, do you have any references to back these posts? I ask that, because a link would add validity to your argument. I personally have no love or admiration for Ann Couter, and think her way of thinking only adds to our divisive mentality. To me, conservatives are akin to Satan, but I do respect their right to be wrong.

[Bionca]

The quotes are petty well documented in her own books and recorded interviews. It's a common enough political tactic used all over - to have a small group of people say stupid stuff to make the rest seem "moderate". It is how Ann makes her money - she winds people up.

The bad part is there are large groups of people who think "at last someone saying what people are too afraid to say". Ann's bread and butter is playing on internalized distrust of non-white people, non-Americans, gays, feminists, and non-Christians.

Ann Coulter isn't hated because she's Conservative... she hated because the stuff she says is baseless, half-truth, emotive, easily debunked, fear-mongering, smug, priveledged, and poorly researched.

[sesame]

Sesame, do you have any references to back these posts?Surely, I do. The megalomania, love for war in Bush's nature require no testimonials. The Christian orthodoxy in Republican party's point of view is also a well known fact.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Ann_Coulter2.jpg/225px-Ann_Coulter2.jpg

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
http://www.slate.com/id/2144983/

[sesame]

The bad part is there are large groups of people who think "at last someone saying what people are too afraid to say". Ann's bread and butter is playing on internalized distrust of non-white people, non-Americans, gays, feminists, and non-Christians.Exactly. Thats the ill-effect she is imparting on the image of a "free country".

[ila]

8) [Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.


I've seen this comment, in print, before. As always I just dismiss it as the ravings of a no-mind.

[ila]

Um, no offense but Canada's military is inferior to America's.


You know not of what you speak.

[Ogryn1313]

I've seen this comment, in print, before. As always I just dismiss it as the ravings of a no-mind.


There's no need to begin the name calling and insulting. Such is the hallmark of left wingers and liberals. And thus far this topic seems to be leaning to the far left. Nothing I said was intended as an insult to anyone so basic respect is in order.

Yes. I know of what I speak. I was in the military.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Um, no offense but Canada's military is inferior to America's. Don't think so little of our training. We have excellent soldiers serving in several distinguished divisions and the like. Also, no other nation has the technoligical edge of our military. We are operating the world's best battle tank and only the British Challenger rivals it.

Wait a second, firstly I think you accidentaly substituted the word rivals for betters. The challenger 2 is the fastest tank in the world, it is lighter than the M1 Abrams even though it is better armoured, it had greater fuel efficiency (which is an important logistical factor), and has a rifled 120mm barrel the Abrams only has a 105mm rifled barrel on the original and 120mm smoothbore barrel on the new version, it had to compromise of accuracy for power, the Challenger has no compromise. It dumps a big fat steamy one on the Abrams.

it is the only class of tank not to have a single loss during the 2003 Iraq invasion, one took 14 rpg hits and MILAN anti tank missile and was not disabled. In contrast, Abrams have been disabled by recoilless rifle fire and have been destroyed by IEDs.

The only Challenger 2 tank ever destroyed during operations was by friendly fire from another Challenger 2 during the assault in Basra.


Onto the other point, which is much bigger and that is US troops are not well trained. They have some the the shortest and crappest training in the world. That is why they are so fucking incompetent and constantly shoot thier allies in the back. The exercise that US marines do on the last day of thier training is what the Royal marines do on the first day. I won't go into details but we all know the US can't train thier soldiers fro shit, they will spend stupid amounts of money of technology and gadget, but when it comes to spending money training them for a decent length of time, they just can't manage it. US army training is now just 9 weeks. The British army spends longer training someone to be in a marching band.

[ila]

There's no need to begin the name calling and insulting. Such is the hallmark of left wingers and liberals. And thus far this topic seems to be leaning to the far left. Nothing I said was intended as an insult to anyone so basic respect is in order.

Yes. I know of what I speak. I was in the military.

I never called you any names so why are you being so sensitive? In fact what you quoted, from me, in your reply was not even taken from any of your posts. That quote was taken from the first post in this thread. If you would care to follow the hot link it would have taken you directly to the post where I took my quote from.

Left winger, liberal - That's the first time I've ever been called that. I'm sure none of my acquaintances would ever say that of me.

You may not have intended to insult anyone but you certainly did and then you started name calling.

[Ogryn1313]

Is the cannon on the Challenger gyro-stabilized? I don't know for sure.

It is foolish to base supremacy on which has a bigger gun or better record. I'm looking at all factors. A machine lost is only a machine lost, doesn't reflect on its quality.

One nice advantage of the Abrams is the simple design. Do you know it's engine only has 5 connection points which enables rapid repair or replacement, putting it back in action more swiftly?

The comparison in training is justifiable but you are forgetting that each military values specific things differently. For example, WW2 German army training relied less on the close order stuff and more on squad based training, such as problem solving and things like blind folding them and running them through complex courses designed to get them used to fighting indoors. American training is different but is not inferior. American's value certain aspects the Brits do not and vice versa. Such disparaging comments does a disservice to soldiers.

[Ogryn1313]

I never called you any names so why are you being so sensitive? In fact what you quoted, from me, in your reply was not even taken from any of your posts. That quote was taken from the first post in this thread. If you would care to follow the hot link it would have taken you directly to the post where I took my quote from.

Left winger, liberal - That's the first time I've ever been called that. I'm sure none of my acquaintances would ever say that of me.

You may not have intended to insult anyone but you certainly did and then you started name calling.


It seemed as if you said I was a raging no-mind. Perhaps I took it wrong or misread it. I didn't name call you. I did imply that this topic leans to the left. That is my opinion based on the nature of some of the posts contained put into an ideological context.

If I name call it is clear when I do it. You'd know without a doubt. But such isn't my way so no worries.

"Such is the hallmark of left wingers and liberals." That's what I said. It meant insults and such are how these people debate. I cited an example there and not calling you one. I can see, however, where you would think I did. So I apologize.

That's not important though. My reply was taken out of context just as I misinterpreted yours. This, sadly, happens all the time in such a limited means of communication as we have here with only words on a screen. We lose much through words on a screen.

[ila]

"Such is the hallmark of left wingers and liberals." That's what I said. It meant insults and such are how these people debate. I cited an example there and not calling you one. I can see, however, where you would think I did. So I apologize.

No problem. I apologize for getting huffy about the whole thing.

That's not important though. My reply was taken out of context just as I misinterpreted yours. This, sadly, happens all the time in such a limited means of communication as we have here with only words on a screen. We lose much through words on a screen.

It happens, but we can still continue to express our opinions.

[Ogryn1313]

I am sure my opinions will be in the minority.:frown:

So, all is well then? We shall get along I hope.

[FoxySarah]

Wait a second, firstly I think you accidentaly substituted the word rivals for betters. The challenger 2 is the fastest tank in the world, it is lighter than the M1 Abrams even though it is better armoured, it had greater fuel efficiency (which is an important logistical factor), and has a rifled 120mm barrel the Abrams only has a 105mm rifled barrel on the original and 120mm smoothbore barrel on the new version, it had to compromise of accuracy for power, the Challenger has no compromise. It dumps a big fat steamy one on the Abrams.

it is the only class of tank not to have a single loss during the 2003 Iraq invasion, one took 14 rpg hits and MILAN anti tank missile and was not disabled. In contrast, Abrams have been disabled by recoilless rifle fire and have been destroyed by IEDs.

The only Challenger 2 tank ever destroyed during operations was by friendly fire from another Challenger 2 during the assault in Basra.





I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on tanks, because I'm not, but I do work for the Department of National Defense, and work very closely with the Electrical and Mechanical Engineers branch of the Canadian Forces. I'm constantly around Weapons and Vehicle Technicians of the Canadian, American and British armies (As well as various other NATO countries), and the Techs rate the Main Battle Tanks from each country, in the order of best to worst like this:

1. Canada's Leopard 2 A6
2. America's M1A2
3. Britain's Challenger 2

[Ogryn1313]

So what are you an expert on?:p

ATV's based on one of your pics I bet. Those are exceptionally popular here where I am and my county is exploring creating an ATV tourism industry. I've never ridden one though.

The Israeli Merkava isn't half bad.

What I do know more about are tankbusters. And when it comes to killing a tank the A-10 is tops.

[rhythmic delivery]

Um, no offense but Canada's military is inferior to America's. Don't think so little of our training. We have excellent soldiers serving in several distinguished divisions and the like. Also, no other nation has the technoligical edge of our military. We are operating the world's best battle tank and only the British Challenger rivals it. The most advanced warships and the world's most advanced fighter, the Raptor, and the best ground support beast, the almighty A-10 Warthog. No armor can survive it's onslaught! Even down to lesser weapons, such as various man portable weapons are superior. Plus, our military has more money to spend than most other nations. And, to my knowledge, no other nation possesses such a refined rapid deployment ability that enables us to move troops to any warzone within 24 hours of the order given!

But, in fairness, I know well Canadian snipers are some of the finest in the world and they performed quite well in Afghanistan. I also know Canada, despite being a nation of hockey pucks (teasing so don't beat me to death) have had a proud military history and always answered the call of duty when needed.

But seriously, America, if we wanted to, would roll over yas!
But we love your Canadian bacon which really is just ham and has an erroneous name. And the women are lovely.

I happen to love Ann Coulter and can't see why she gets so much hate, on another note. She's controversial. But because she's right wing she is hated as most of the American and foreign media are dominated by liberal or far left ideologues. What Coulter does is no different than the vile hate mongers on websites like The Daily Kos, Arianna Huffington's garbage site, Media Matters or Moveon do. Only, the far left has the virtue of being in the majority of the media. Coulter is just a highly vocal member of a minority who doesn't get equal nor fair media representation as secular progressives, lefties and their ilk get. But, if one would but be objective they'd see she's just the same as any other controversial figure and the hatred lavished on her is often based on an ideological and ignorant bias of the hater who cannot accept opposing views.

LoL yeah you would roll over canada in the same way you rolled over north korea, vietnam afghanistan and iraq. you may have the best equiped army in the world, but your troops are a bunch of silly litle boys who grew up playing fps's and thought thats what being in the army's like. then they get out there and people are shooting at them all they can do is run for cover and call in an airstrike, with a great posibility that it will land on a friendly position.

[Ogryn1313]

We came along way since North Korea. You must not understand all the intricacies of warfare. Do you think those are examples of some inferiority?

North Korea: politics, ideology, these lost that conflict and resulted in stalemate. It doesn't reflect on the troops.

Vietnam: civil unrest at home, political pressure, and once again ideology are the cause of the withdrawal from the war. American forces won virtually every engagement against the North Vietnamese. However, the enemy was relentless and elusive. The Ho Chi Minh trail was difficult to sever because it constantly changed. Add to these severe restrictions placed on what we were allowed to do and where to go hindered our ability.

Iraq: For some reason people think Iraq is still an American war. They are in error. Coalition forces won the war in Iraq. All the objectives of the war were met. Saddam was overthrown and the Iraqi people have their own government and elections. What is going on in Iraq since Bush declared victory in Iraq isn't an American war. It is an Iraqi civil war in which various groups in Iraq are jockeying for power, with Al Qaeda and Iranian elements thrown in. America is there now as a sort of peace keeping force trying to hold the nation together. It is not a war in the usual sense as our original enemy there has been defeated. The troop surge has worked and many regions are now more peaceful. However, if troops are drawn out Iraq may well fall apart.

One simply needs to look at basic facts through an unbiased filter to see the truth of this. The liberal media and far left interests have constantly reported on Iraq in a negative light, willingly omitting any stories that would report any success or positive advancement. They even went so far as to prejudge and and influence the public regarding General Petraeus's report to Congress. Later on, many congressmen and senators validated the report as truthful and acknowledged the surge has had a positive effect in Iraq. The far left has used this "war" and "failure" to influence the public in order to get a democrat in the White House.

The "war" and "failure" in Iraq right now is entirely upon the Iraqis themselves. Also, do not forget it is a coalition that went into Iraq, not only Americans, including a few of the "superior" nations you speak of. So, it would seem any failure in Iraq ought to be blamed not only on American forces. Yet, notice the media only reports on the American forces, losses, deaths? No mention of the other forces there? This shows it's all biased and agenda driven reportage.

Afghanistan: again, the war was one and the Taliban government was removed. True, Bin Laden has not been killed nor captured. But his fate isn't critical to fighting terrorism. Only a nice vengeance bonus. There are still elements of the Taliban and al Qaeda at work there, operating in the lawless areas and using the difficult terrain to their advantage.

Also, American forces are operating under the strictest and most complex rules of engagement in their history which ties their hands and limits their ability to fight effectively.

Lastly, I reiterate one needs to look at the issue without bias and agenda to see the truth in a thing, and definately not make use of the media to form an opinion on matters. Now, I provoked this with my facetious comments previously. But I have never once denied America's falures. I just refuse to never overlook its successes and good points unlike most of the world these days.

For the record, I think America should have kept an isolationist stance and never entered into any foreign wars, inlcluding WW2. Should have left Europe on its own. We have only ever gotten grief and criticism ever since. I don't care about the Iraqis and they could still be oppressed by Hussein for my two cents. And my response to 9/11 would have been a rapid strike at Afghanistan and Bin Laden's camps unilaterally with no regard for collateral damage and civilian casualties. Terrorists and radical Islamic nations have no such concerns and so should be dealt with in like fashion in my opinion. Isolationist policies are America's best hopes for the future, and not thinking isolationist is what created so many of our problems.

But none of the above reflects upon the quality of our fighting ability and to grasp at things to put our troops down is a huge insult to our living veterans and dead ones. But I apply this thinking to all veterans of any nation. The troops should never be blamed for the failings of the higher ups. It's not the troops who choose their training, equipment, and such, nor is itthey who choose to go to war.

And with this I have said my piece. My apologies to all for such a long post and my applauds to anyone who actually read all of this. :respect: I shall now bow out of the topic.

[nmlss]

Wow, she's hot... I'll like to fuck her fucking reactionary fucking ass with my FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation) flag covering her face.

I've always dreamed of fucking a fascist ass....

¡¡Tierra y Libertad!!

[sesame]

Soon, the Obama family will become the first family of USA. ... And hopefully change American policies to make it a better place... and stop war games all over the world. And stop making messes all over the places in the name of Aggressive Peacemaking!

[CuriousJim]

Actually, in reply to the posts about America's army being far better than Canada's, please look at the link below. This event actually happened as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5onkl2EHV4

[GRH]

It pains me that we can sit here and argue over the greater army...Or who might be "more entitled" to this continent...

Back to the topic, YES, I hate Anne Couter and pretty much the entirety of her espoused politic.

[sesame]

Also, American forces are operating under the strictest and most complex rules of engagement in their history which ties their hands and limits their ability to fight effectively.You're kidding right? The USA never obeys any rules. It enforces "Laws" on other superpowers but behaves as the unquestionable Bigboss and makes it's own decisions. USA intervenes in foreign politics when it likes and attacks other nations when it sees fit. Its the most war-loving-country in the world!! Its business interest lies in war. Why do you think the US invests the lions share of it's tax money in warfare?

For the record, I think America should have kept an isolationist stance and never entered into any foreign wars, inlcluding WW2. Should have left Europe on its own. We have only ever gotten grief and criticism ever since. That must be a joke too. If America didnt get involved in WW2, it would not be a superpower today. Scientists from all over the world and especially those fleeing from the Nazis collected in America. So this way, USA got the most valuable brains of the world. Also consider the German gold, where do you think it ended up? And then again, the two Atomic Bombs dropped by USA on quiet civilian Japanese cities, caused quite a sensation. It shocked the whole planet and scared the shit out of all other nations. It also triggered the nuclear arms race. So, America had everything to gain from World War II.

[Ogryn1313]

I'm too sick to argue my stance right now.

I know we made gains from involvement in WW2. It helped us go to the moon. A lot of good came of it.

None of which, in my opinion, was particularly worthwhile. Superpower status? Whoopty doo. Who needs to be a superpower? It just means you're the big dog on the porch. Nazi Gold? We did take some of the wealth. Spoils of war. That's how it goes. But a large chunk of it sits in Swiss bank accounts or is unaccounted for.

Nuclear arms race? Phooey. All that did was make some people rich, terrify millions for decades, and gave the world a weapon nobody wants to use.

If, being isolationist, meant America didn't achieve great things like going to the moon, being a superpower, so be it. I see no use in opening up to other nations because what we could gain we could likely gain ourselves through other means. I'm an American. I live in America. As such, my priorities lie with my nation and countrymen. All other nations and its people are secondary considerations.

That's my belief. Every nation should be more concerned with itself than others. Europe is constantly holding America up to its standards and the Euro-elite embrace a borderless world concept. But everyone is involving themselves in one another's issues and problems. Including America. And that in itself is the source of much of the world's troubles.

[sesame]

the Euro-elite embrace a borderless world concept. What concept is that?

[Ogryn1313]

Some of the higher ups in various European nations and institution favor the notion of a world without borders. It's evident in some of the aspects of the European Union and such. To them, the world is better off without borders. Removing borders means no more national identity. It's also about greed and free trade.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Is the cannon on the Challenger gyro-stabilized? I don't know for sure.
Yes it is.

Also the Leopard 2 A6 is German, just cos Canada have some doesn't make it "Canada's"

Now allow me to continue on another point, I'm not going to quote it, but the idea that America is not fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, lets see, Americans are shooting at Afghans, and Afghans are shooting at Americans, that certainly fits the definition of a war. Likewise in Iraq, this civil war bullshit is just that, I suppose it was a civil war in Vietnam, with the USians as peace keepers was it? The US army is not a peace keeping force in Iraq, if they are, why are they on one side? The US is the invader and the aggressor, they have not won, the fighting was continuous, and it has always been Americans vs Iraqis. Americans are no more peacekeepers than the Nazis were in France, and it is no more a civil war than the occupation of France was a civil war between resistance and collaborators.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Some of the higher ups in various European nations and institution favor the notion of a world without borders. It's evident in some of the aspects of the European Union and such. To them, the world is better off without borders. Removing borders means no more national identity. It's also about greed and free trade.

Ummm, have you heard the expression 'Fortress Europe'?

[sesame]

Anna, how come you know so much about weapons? :confused:

[Ogryn1313]

If not mistaken that expression applied to Hitler's Europe as it was fortified and defended against possible invasion. Which, naturally didn't help him.

Don't split hairs now. It's useless. I didn't say combat is going on but it isn't a war unless you simply apply the broadest definition to it. Which, if so, is in error. I call it what it is. When it was a war we established clear objectives. These were met. Major combat operations ended. It's not a "war" in the usual sense anymore. I contend America did win the "war" in Iraq. All objectives were met. One simply doesn't launch a war, win, then walk away. No, they stay behind, help rebuild, re-educate, provide security, keep things from falling apart. Which is what we now do there. Yes, we're being shot at and taking shots. But it isn't war as most define it. There are different types of military actions.

You simply don't get it Anna.

I said it is akin to a peace keeping force. We are on the side of the Iraqis. We liberated them from Saddam. And want them to have their own stable government. To that end we are trying to help keep it going. Our original war enemy, the Hussein regime is defeated. We no longer have a clear enemy in Iraq beyond Al Qaeda. The true enemy there is the Iraqis themselves who wish to not get along and move their nation ahead but rather carve it up. In some ways we are caught in their crossfire. But if we left we'd be leaving it worse than we found it.


Anna, I think you are being too black and white on this, focusing on a small picture instead of the whole picture. I'm looking at everything when I discuss such matters. So forgive me for being argumentative and annoying.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

If not mistaken that expression applied to Hitler's Europe as it was fortified and defended against possible invasion. Which, naturally didn't help him.

Don't split hairs now. It's useless. I didn't say combat is going on but it isn't a war unless you simply apply the broadest definition to it. Which, if so, is in error. I call it what it is. When it was a war we established clear objectives. These were met. Major combat operations ended. It's not a "war" in the usual sense anymore. I contend America did win the "war" in Iraq. All objectives were met. One simply doesn't launch a war, win, then walk away. No, they stay behind, help rebuild, re-educate, provide security, keep things from falling apart. Which is what we now do there. Yes, we're being shot at and taking shots. But it isn't war as most define it. There are different types of military actions.

You simply don't get it Anna.

I said it is akin to a peace keeping force. We are on the side of the Iraqis. We liberated them from Saddam. And want them to have their own stable government. To that end we are trying to help keep it going. Our original war enemy, the Hussein regime is defeated. We no longer have a clear enemy in Iraq beyond Al Qaeda. The true enemy there is the Iraqis themselves who wish to not get along and move their nation ahead but rather carve it up. In some ways we are caught in their crossfire. But if we left we'd be leaving it worse than we found it.


Anna, I think you are being too black and white on this, focusing on a small picture instead of the whole picture. I'm looking at everything when I discuss such matters. So forgive me for being argumentative and annoying.

Umm, Iraqis primary desire is to get the Americans the fuck of thier soil. Even the puppet government the US installed has called on the US to get out.

Americas primary aim is strategic dominance of the middle east.

You are the one who doesn't get it, open your eyes, the USA didn't invade Iraq to 'liberate' the Iraqis, they went to control the region, they now have Iran surrounded and have control of one of the world largest oil fields. They are constructing permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have Iraqi oil under control of US companies and they have forward bases to strike Iran or Syria.

Lets focus on the whole picture, the US invaded Iraq why? To find the WMDs? no. they always knew there were none. To get Al Quieda? no. There were no Al Quida cell in Iraq before the invasion. Because of 9/11? no. There were no links at all. To liberate the Iraqi people? Lol, that's a goo one. To overthrow a dictator? no, they are usually good friends with dictators. So why? Oil is one reason, strategic control of the middle east is another, Iraq was the weakest of the hostile countries there, so to take it over then use it as a forward base against the other countries seemed a good idea, a way to give government money to rich people is nice incidental factor, there's more I can't think of now.



Oh and the term Fortress Europe is currently used to refer to EU methods of stopping illegal immigrants from outside the union. There is free movement within the EU, but the outer borders of the EU are more impenetrable than ever. It's certainly no borderless world concept, any more than the USA is.

[Ogryn1313]

Anna,

I dont recall I ever said we only went to Iraq to liberate. I didn't. The fact is, I know very well we went in for many reasons. You never go to war for one thing only. War is a huge investment in money and manpower, you have to get something out to justify it.

We went it to liberate. But we in for other reasons.

Yes, searching for WMD's that thus far have not been found, the result of faulty intelligence.

No, we didn't go for oil. If so oil prices wouldn't be such a pain in the balls for everyone. Iraq only taps about 10 percent of its oil. It would cost a fortune to bring up the infrastructure to the point Iraqi oil would be worth effort.

We went in to finish the job. Since the end of the first war there Iraq has continually attempted to shoot down planes patrolling the NFZ. Something the media doesn't like to tell people. To me that is an affront justifying a war.

We went in to create a stable democracy where one didn't exist before. With the long term goal of changing things in the Mideast. But this is all about ideology and fit for a different discussion in itself.

Fact time:

Saddam was in violation of something like 17 Useless Nations resolutions.

Iraq still had illegal weapons which were banned to them after the first war, including Al Samoud missiles.

The targeting of NFZ flight patrols.

Continued oppression and human rights violations.

These, Anna, are facts. All of which could have been resolved by the inneffective UN. Who wouldn't do their job. So we did it.

You think ALL Iraqis want us out. It isn't true. Some do and some don't. There is proof many want us there. Watch "Baghdad Hospital." A documentary on Iraq as filmed by a doctor in a hospital in Baghdad. He shows us the truth of the situation. There are, in this film, some who want us gone. While others want us there. The doctor himself said American forces right now are the only real authority in this chaotic mess. You may find this interesting. It is a wonderful bit of straight and unbiased documentary filming on this matter.

Now, I am not saying that which you cited is incorrect. We are both right actually. But we are both seeing the issue through different world views apparently. I do feel you are being biased and thus unfairly condemning.

And, Anna, considering the evil nature of the leadership in Iran, is it such a bad thing for us to be there in Iraq. Here you have a nation who funds terrorists and do not deny it. They are right now killing our men in Iraq. Let's not forget the hostage crisis decades ago. They call for the destruction of the Jews and Israel, deny the Holocaust...hell...their president even believes gays don't exist in his nation! This is dangerous nation. Perhaps they should have been invaded.

Anyway...Anna, on a personal level, I would hope our opposing views would not prevent possible friendship. So let us resolve to not have hard feelings over any debating we may do?

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Faulty intelligence? You still believe that? Let's see, there's hte lie about the uranium, the dosier that turned out to be a plagiarised thesis from after the first war, the whole David Kelly thing, the 45 minuite lie, that's just off the top of my head. I knew there were no WMD in iraq, we all knew it. Everything we (the Anti war proesters) said turned out to be true, everything they said turned out to be a lie. All the 'intelligence' they released were revealed as lies by the press.

Facts: Al Samoud missiles were found and destroyed by who? Oh the UN

What middle eastern country in in breach of hte most UN resolutions, over 100 of them? Oh look it's Israel.

What middle eastern country was caught secretly developing nuclear weapons? Oh it's Israel again.

What middle eastern country has never started a war or invaded any of it's neighbours? Oh it's that super dangerous country Iran.

"I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him" - Ariel Sharon. There's a nice popular quote from Sharon, I've never seen evidence he said it, just like I've never seen any evidence that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map.

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the holocaust make him evil, does Japan's denial of thier WW2 atrocities make them evil? Does Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide make them evil? Iran is threatened with war, and Turkey is given weapons and offered nuclear secrets.

If you want to look at those who fund terrorists, who funded the IRA for years? Who funded Al Quieda when thier terrorism was directed against the soviets? Who supported Saddam and gave him chemical weapons? Who was his ally when he commited his biggest atrocities?

Continued oppression and human rights violations? What country are we talking about here? That could apply to any number of US allies, including all those countries that the US sends prisoners to. Lets see, what human rights violations have occured since sadam is gone, and who is perpetrating them?

Oh Iraq tried to shoot down planes violating it's airspace? Planes that were bombing it constantly? Blowing up stuff like penicillin factories.

The US doesn't care about democracy, all it cares about is whether natins are pro or anti US. It props up dictatorships all over the world so long as they are pro US. In 1953, the US and Britain deposed the democraticly elected Prime minister of Iran because he was too socialist for their liking. The US had no objection to rule by a brutal dictator, so long as he was a US friendly brutal dictator.

US double standards are unending.

The US objective is, and always had been, power and control.

[GRH]

Anna, I'm sorry the mother country wasn't man enough to hold onto its colonial interests. Perhaps this is why the UK and much of Europe has such disdain for America? Do you REALLY believe that the sacrifice of colonial interests was for "the larger good?" HELL NO. You goddamn lost a war that was in your best interest to win.

The fact is, America has managed to hold onto and to create colonial interests in this century. Do I like this fact? Not particularly. And I don't dispute a SINGLE argument that you make regarding the Iraq war. But Israel is an "Ally!" That's the operative word there. We have no vested interest in waging war there. In Iraq, there is a direct gain to be had in war. Don't ever be so naive as to believe that a nation's own vested interest isn't the single largest motivator of war-mongering.

No, we truly have NO interest in peace, or democracy as a nation. Our ONLY true goal is to sustain our nation and our national interests, and if that means setting up puppet governments, tapping foreign oil fields, etc. so be it...Otherwise we might end up like the Island across the pond, a small sliver of land with only a hint of its once greatness. As I say this, please don't think this is my personal feeling, but I'm trying to explain the actions of my country through the lense of national interest. I think that is the TRUE motivator of almost all American foreign policy in the past fifty + years.

[Ogryn1313]

Faulty intelligence? You still believe that? Let's see, there's hte lie about the uranium, the dosier that turned out to be a plagiarised thesis from after the first war, the whole David Kelly thing, the 45 minuite lie, that's just off the top of my head. I knew there were no WMD in iraq, we all knew it. Everything we (the Anti war proesters) said turned out to be true, everything they said turned out to be a lie. All the 'intelligence' they released were revealed as lies by the press.

Facts: Al Samoud missiles were found and destroyed by who? Oh the UN

What middle eastern country in in breach of hte most UN resolutions, over 100 of them? Oh look it's Israel.

What middle eastern country was caught secretly developing nuclear weapons? Oh it's Israel again.

What middle eastern country has never started a war or invaded any of it's neighbours? Oh it's that super dangerous country Iran.

"I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him" - Ariel Sharon. There's a nice popular quote from Sharon, I've never seen evidence he said it, just like I've never seen any evidence that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel should be wiped off the map.

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the holocaust make him evil, does Japan's denial of thier WW2 atrocities make them evil? Does Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide make them evil? Iran is threatened with war, and Turkey is given weapons and offered nuclear secrets.

If you want to look at those who fund terrorists, who funded the IRA for years? Who funded Al Quieda when thier terrorism was directed against the soviets? Who supported Saddam and gave him chemical weapons? Who was his ally when he commited his biggest atrocities?

Continued oppression and human rights violations? What country are we talking about here? That could apply to any number of US allies, including all those countries that the US sends prisoners to. Lets see, what human rights violations have occured since sadam is gone, and who is perpetrating them?

Oh Iraq tried to shoot down planes violating it's airspace? Planes that were bombing it constantly? Blowing up stuff like penicillin factories.

The US doesn't care about democracy, all it cares about is whether natins are pro or anti US. It props up dictatorships all over the world so long as they are pro US. In 1953, the US and Britain deposed the democraticly elected Prime minister of Iran because he was too socialist for their liking. The US had no objection to rule by a brutal dictator, so long as he was a US friendly brutal dictator.

US double standards are unending.

The US objective is, and always had been, power and control.

Much of the things you trot out, whether true or not are things open to interpretation and ideological bias. Thus you can deny a thing I would support and vice versa. Neither of which really matters.

You drag Israel into this for some reasons. I'm a person who believes Israel must do whatever it requires to defend itself as it is surrounded by enemies. And historically, Israel has cooperated more with America and the UN than it's enemies. So if they have some resolutions they've violated so be it.

I'm sorry to say you strike me as one of those far left intellectual elitist types. The kind with a clear and obvious anti-American stance. The kind of person who will tenaciously cling to their argument and evidence (even in occasions when their evidence is thin) to support their argument. Thus, I feel anything you say isn't necessarily being said out of the truth of the issue but rather your hatred of a particular nation.

Now I could be wrong. It's been known to happen from time to time. And I would hope I'm wrong in this instance. But all I see is argumentative hate speech directed at the United States. The same kind of stuff I see in the far left newspapers, blogs, and from people like Michael Moore, Code Pink, and Rosie O'Donnel. I am beginning to think you have swallowed a specific ideology hook line and sinker and let this ideology think for you.

Now, you could..just as easily accuse me of the same thing and chalk me up to being some kind of unintelligent and blindly patriotic American because I choose to defend my nation and will not overlook it's good points. But the difference, thus far, between you and I is that I don't solely focus on the negative. I see the flaws and the good in all things. If you are just another ideologue you probably only see the flaws. It is made evident in your hateful tone and use of moral equivalency. The latter is often a tool of the ideologues to mitigate the failings of their hateful views. Moral equivalency is never a good thing to embrace and use to back up arguments. The issue at hand is the United States. And to make comparisons with other things is moral equivalency. Such as your comparing Israel to the Hussein Iraq. You do it to mitigate the issue and spin it in your favor.

Moral equivalency is dangerous. The state of Vermont's legislature primarily is made up of secular progressives, who are a component of the far-left ideology. And they embrace moral equivalency. Such to the extent it has affected their law making. This is why child molester's in Vermont can get excessively light sentences. Now, this is just an example. But I hope you see my point that when trying to compare things on a morally equivalent basis, to back up an ideology, is illogical and doesn't produce good results in debate. It's a means to deflect from the core issue.

Also, we didn't fund Al Qaeda during the Afghan Soviet War. They didn't exist. Bin Laden wasn't on our payroll and didn't any form of training by American representatives. See, this is the myth. Here is the truth: Bin Laden did fight the Soviets. And he may well have had access to American weapons. We did indeed fund the Afghans to fight the Soviets.

What people who cling to this myth don't understand is why Bin Laden went to fight. We all know he is an Arab. Not an Afghan. So why should he bother? He bothered because he answered an Islamic call to arms along with 1000's of others from around the Islamic world. They poured in to help their Islamic Afghan brothers fight the infidels. So his connection, as people like you imply, to America is a myth. Funny how people can easily manipulate facts for ideological purposes. Bin Laden came into Afghanistan on his own. I'm sure some in the far left will produce documentation or second hand information to suggest we specifically sought him out, offered him training and weapons. And there are fools who believe this kind of shit. Don't be one.

I'll use a simple analogy to describe the US and Bin Laden link: it'd be like me throwing a big party and I invited you to come Anna. But then you brought some friends with you I didn't invite. That's the connection. That's all it is. Al Qaeda didn't even exist then. The organization came after that war.

So, as you see, I didn't deny our involvement in Afghanistan. And I didn't deny Bin Laden was there. It's all about how one interprets the facts and evidence without letting their political ideology bias their interpretations. Thus far, you show me you are purely biased. You embrace evidence presented that backs you up completely and unquestioningly while dismissing the possibility counter-evidence could be right, and mitigate and twist things using moral equivalency.

You're proving to be frustrating and yet interesting. I do enjoy our back and forth. And, at least you're sticking to your guns Anna. :respect:

[sesame]

Today I saw the Demonstration of Abrams Tank capabilities in NatGeo channel. The RPG (rocket propelled grenades) were deflected right back from the heavily armoured wall of the tank. That was impressive.

I also saw US marines field documentary of how they captured the city of Karabilah in Syria-Iraq border. It was not impressive at all. The soldiers seriously lacked tactics, they were frequently walking into the open. The whole weapons co. freaked out when one of their men got hit on the thigh. If you are in a war zone, what do you expect? They captured the first house and found women and unarmed men inside. But as soon as one soldier recieved that thigh injury, they didnt bother to check any more. They Just tossed some c4 explosives inside the next houses and blasted whoever were inside. Snipers were hitting near the soldiers heads. So they first tried to shoot down the sniper (surely the sniper's gun was not a long range one) with a machine gun. When they couldnt, they called in an airstrike from choppers on that particular building. The airstrike completely destroyed the building. The US soldiers believe in explosive firepower. Their favs are RPG and C4. When they got nervous, they deployed a weapon that threw about 50 packets of C4 roped togather like sausages!! When it exploded, it tore off 1/3 of the city! I think that without that devastating fire-power and frequent cry-outs for air-strike, the US marines are not that skilled or fearless after all. Their fame is a myth, just propaganda.

[sesame]

If you want to look at those who fund terrorists, who funded the IRA for years? Who funded Al Quieda when thier terrorism was directed against the soviets? Who supported Saddam and gave him chemical weapons? Who was his ally when he commited his biggest atrocities? Who profits from the arms race? Who ultimately profits from Warfare? Who can be called modern warlords?

[sesame]

Obama - and McCain - offended by New Yorker cover.
This is over the limit of pun, its disgusting. I considered this cartoon most offensive and racist. So, I didnt post it in the Forum. But you can see it here.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4619003a6433.html

Obama is shown here as an enemy of US, and friend of the militant Islamic groups.

[TheSkronkDonkey]

Obama - and McCain - offended by New Yorker cover.
This is over the limit of pun, its disgusting.

Says you.

I think it's a brilliant mockery of rabid right-wing whackos who'll say anything to bring down Barack Obama and his clearly superior candidacy.

Its grotesque hyperbole is meant to be commensurate with the magnitude of the idiocy of making Obama out to be "Osama", the deal over his middle name (Hussein), his skin colour, Islamophobia and skewing in general.

It's a shame that either side had to poo-poo this magazine cover, let alone both of them. But politics is a shrewd business (pun intended). The Overton Window is only so wide at any given time. The creation of this image, and the ensuing condemnation, is a powerful statement about where we stand, socially and politically, at this very moment in time.

[Ogryn1313]

Clearly superior candidacy?

How about some reality now please?

He's not been a senator all that long.
He's not really accomplished any serious achievements or legislature for the nation.
He has minimal leadership experience.
He didn't serve in the military. While not required it does help. Consider this a bonus which imparts some experience to the candidate.
Instead of visiting and meeting foreign diplomats and leaders like McCain did, he chose to stay home and bitch and moan and fight with Clinton.
He tells us we ought to inflate our tires to solve the fuel problem.
He thinks we can sit down and chat with the likes of the Iranian president and Bin Laden.
He's as far left as it gets.

Not that McCain is a godly being but lets see....

More experience in politics than Clinton and Obama combined.
Served his nature in military and then in Washington...a far more bloody battleground than Viet Nam.
Actually bothers to accomplish things as a senator instead of being a political rockstar.

I don't know...if rosy words and promises of change and hope (while denigrating a certain group Americans) makes him superior then I guess so. That's why elitists love him. Elitists, the far left, all talk and little substance. Just like Obama.

Now this isn't any Republican bias. This is just looking at the reality. The guy is nothing. An empty suit. A political rockstar with a silver tongue and the backing of the far left and it's media machine. Anyone who votes for him clearly isn't much of an independent thinker.

[TracyCoxx]

Ann Coulter is yet another example of how the Republican party has been hijacked by the religious right. I hate that they have so much control over the party, but it seems to be the main reason in this country of many fundamentalist christians that the republicans get elected. I do agree with republicans on capitalism and economic conservatism though, and a strong national defense. Lower taxes? Come on. That's obvious.

But it's the fundamentalist christian crap that's lobotomizing our education system.

BTW, sesame, the quote you attributed to Ann Coulter:
"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

If she said that, she was actually quoting a muslim cleric who was tired of seeing muslim extremists resorting to terrorism.

[Ogryn1313]

By that logic, in all due respect Tracy, I must say the same of the Democratic party.

Ok, I can concede Christianity has influence in the Republican party. I won't go more into it and about our history as nation as that's another discussion in itself. But I will say this: each side has sold out to some ideology or belief system.

So, to speak on the Democrats:

People like Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnel, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Clinton, others...are proof that the Democratic party has whored itself out to liberal or far left interests.

It goes both ways. Both parties are owned by some religious or ideological camp. I don't separate religion from ideology in this context. Because sometimes political ideology becomes a kind of religion. For the record, average liberals are ok. But you have the far left who stem from them. And extending further you have the dangerous secular progressives.

So, Tracy, with this said I now present you what the true problem is.

It's not the Reps or the Dems really. It's the fact that political affiliation is now entirely based on religious or ideological views. It's the fact that we are losing the classic and traditional Democrat and Republican. They are now becoming the Left Winger and Right Winger. People are letting ideology replace intelligent and independent thought in this nation and all over the world.

In all fairness...I have hope. For I feel that the "in the middle" types of liberals and conservatives both are the last honest to God free thinkers. Right wingers and left wingers and splinter groups are nothing more than ideological sheep being led by a shepherd.

But the, for lack of a better word, "good" liberal and "good conservative could turn it around. For these people bridge the party lines. They tend to be less partisan based on how they feel about specific issues. Whereas many others just swallow the party line. The Dems sold out to the far left. And there is much evidence to prove this just as there is that Republicans allow Christianity to influence them. Ever notice that the anti-religion crowd are found mostly in the Democratic left? Think about that.

So, I think people need to become free thinkers again and lose this "us versus them" thinking.

[TracyCoxx]

I would agree with what you said Ogryn1313 with the possible exception of:

Ever notice that the anti-religion crowd are found mostly in the Democratic left? Think about that.

I am atheist, but identify myself with the republican party - minus the conservative right. But I'm probably an exception to the rule though.

So, I think people need to become free thinkers again and lose this "us versus them" thinking.

Absolutely. It seems to be getting worse though.

[Ogryn1313]

I have no particular religious leanings. I don't go to church and the like. I see the flaws in Christianity and its effect on society. Likewise I see things negative in secularism and atheism. I'm a member of a website called Satanspace.com. It's full of religion haters. The intolerance and hatred is shocking. I'm not popular there because I don't condemn Christians and Jews. I'll defend them when appropriate.

And the irony is, I'm doing what a Christian might call God's work. But not out of religious regions but for social and ethical reasons. Like I said, I don't follow a religion but not reject them. Nor do I reject atheism provided it is tolerant, fair and not based on hatred. I'm able to find something valuable in both things and see no need to reject one or the other out of hand.

Now, your other statement.

"Absolutely. It seems to be getting worse though."

This is worth exploring. To that end I submit this too you:

The rise of the internet as a media tool contributes largely to less free thought. Initially it might have helped to foster more independent thinkers as it provided us with a fresh new source of media which was free of the bias of television news, talk radio and print media.

Somewhere along the way the internet became corrupted in this regard. And like its media counterparts it soon became a vehicle for people to push their ideology and agendas. I'll cite far left websites like Moveon.org, The Daily Kos, and that awful thing Arianna Huffington has. Clear agenda driven bias. Far right groups do this as well. The internet makes it possible for anyone to push their view out there whereas before the internet it was more controlled.

In time legions of people embraced this medium but lost sight of independent thought. Ever notice some brainiacs on online forums are always quick with cut and paste info, stats, articles to back up thier views? Many can find anything online that backs them up. And the internet lacks a certain professionalism and impartiality that traditional news had. Or should I say used to have? The internet is mostly biased information available in many sources and anyone can use it to back up their argument. Anything can be spun, twisted about, and not even verifiable in many cases. Most of it second hand info.

So with a generation turning this it is no wonder many people lack independent thinking. Humans don't like to make effort or work, they want it all handed to them. And this internet is good for handing us whatever we want.

It's to the point now an independent thinker has even more work ahead of them trying to decipher things and filter out biased information. For this, it is best they rely heavily upon experience, wisdom and logic. And a dose of common sense.

What do you think about this Tracy? Am I putting too much stock into it?

[sesame]

The rise of the internet as a media tool contributes largely to less free thought. Initially it might have helped to foster more independent thinkers as it provided us with a fresh new source of media which was free of the bias of television news, talk radio and print media.
Somewhere along the way the internet became corrupted in this regard. And like its media counterparts it soon became a vehicle for people to push their ideology and agendas.;) Yes, internet is a new medium and is more popular that any other. Thats because you can interact with it, you can answer back. TV or Radio are one way communication, you can only see and hear and keep your opinion to yourself.

Its freedom of speech in the internet. Nobody is going to show you red eyes or shut you up. People, insignificant nobodies, non-celebrities can make a stand here, get their voices heard, faces seen, opinions read. Of course its the best thing that has happened in a century.

I think that there is enough free thought, independant opinions, original ideas spread all over the internet. You just have to pick them up from the infinite clutter. Thats because all of the participants of the internet are not bright enough.

Do you think anybody can make his way on a TV show or radio talk? No. But in the internet you can. It goes without saying that TV and Radio are biased. Do you consider everything you see and hear in those media as original and unedited chunks of Truth, do you? The internet is a far more verifiable source of valid information. You have encyclopediae, databases, official websites at your fingertips. Its the most powerful Library of info in the world.

[Ogryn1313]

And yet, such an unprecedented amount of unimpaired freedom is being abused. Freedom of speech requires responsibility. And many idiots abuse this right. Take the Falwell example. He had a right to say those things he did. And so too did his haters have a right to say what they do about him. And then, before his body is laid to rest all over the internet ignorant and hateful so called intellectuals are celebrating his death and saying vile things. Yeah, we are free speak like this.

But should we? Is it responsible and ethical to say things, especially when his family is in mourning? Was it right for Churchill to condemn the victims of 9/11?

I'm all for free speech. And one can be controversial. But we should all be moral and ethical. And responsible. See, we no longer have civility in debates and discussions. This kind of thing fosters hate speech and intolerance, dillutes intelligent conversation and increases ignorance I think. I don't blame this on the net itself but rather the way people abuse it. It's the people's fault.

Freedom of speech no longer means what it says either. Ever notice a lot of minorities use groups like the ACLU to interfere with the rights of the groups they oppose for example?

So if the internet as media outlet continues to contribute to the decline of intelligent and responsible free speech, then, in my opinion completely worthless and has no redeeming value.

[St. Araqiel]

Its freedom of speech in the internet. Nobody is going to show you red eyes or shut you up. Sure...not until any of these moronic factions decide to pressure ISPs into applying hefty fees to the submission of so much as a YouTube comment, so only the ultrawealthy, be they left- or right-wing, can afford to put their opinions online for everyone else to see (and grumble at their helplessness to offer any response). Sometime after that, the right-wingers (who've actually put in the time and money to execute their master plan[s]) will take over the last bastion of free, unbiased information by force.

[TracyCoxx]

What do you think about this Tracy? Am I putting too much stock into it?

I think you're right about the effect of the internet. I also think it's so easy to find information - whether it's true or BS that people think they are instant experts on a subject without, as you say, thinking things though.

[sesame]

I think you're right about the effect of the internet. I also think it's so easy to find information - whether it's true or BS that people think they are instant experts on a subject without, as you say, thinking things though.Ogryn1313 and Tracy, you two are only considering the downside of the internet. You are only thinking of those phony gurus. But isnt it great that you can access information from any search engine instantly? You can find anything on any subject, whenever you need!

Also, its another excuse to socialize. Think of the numerous chatrooms, forums, newsgroup acquaintances, friends you would miss out without the internet. You are meeting people and making friends from all over the world!

Or you just dont wanna admit the benefits and find imaginary faults? There will always be some people who abuse the internet. Its true for all new technologies. So dont zoom in on the bottom-feeders and blame the whole system.

[TracyCoxx]

Ogryn1313 and Tracy, you two are only considering the downside of the internet. You are only thinking of those phony gurus. But isnt it great that you can access information from any search engine instantly? You can find anything on any subject, whenever you need!

Well of course being able to do that is great. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of people out there who misuse information they find.

[Ogryn1313]

I'm skeptical of any information found online. Like Wikepedia. Too easily manipulated and edited.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Ogryn, what a post, basicly you spend half your post constructing arguements that simply damn you more than they do me. All of what you say applies to yourself 50x more than me.

I brought up no moral equivalence, you fail to track even your own arguements, let alone mine, your use of the phrase doesn't even make sense anyway. Lets see, you accuse me of bringing Israel into it, but you did, you justify the attack on Iran as protecting Israel, and the comparison of the Sharon quote to the Ahmadinejad quote was not moral equivalence. I was taking the piss out of you. The fact is neither quote is real, they are both lies, just both popular and well repeated lies. Sharon never said he would burn a Palestinian, and Ahmadinejad never said he wanted Israel wiped off the map. I could just as easily repeat the Sharon quote like you did with the lies about Ahmadinejad, but I choose not to.

Look at the post before yours. GRH is talking the truth, the USA is just the latest line of a long string of colonial powers. They take that they can, and obfuscate their motives with lies. It's not like they are the first, democracy, freedom, human rights, the British empire used to call it the white man's burden.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

I'm skeptical of any information found online. Like Wikepedia. Too easily manipulated and edited.

You clearly never read the talk pages on wikipedia. lol, the manipulation is far from easy ;P

[Ogryn1313]

Easy or difficult is irrelevant. The fact remains it is manipulated frequently sassy pants.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Easy or difficult is irrelevant. The fact remains it is manipulated frequently sassy pants.

Seriously read the talk pages on a major artice, untill you do, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about, and your no better than what your complaining about, just parroting the same line someone parroted to you.

anyway, anyone who uses an encyclopaedia as a primary source is a muppet, even if it's Britannica or something, encyclopaedias are not valid sources. Any high quality Wikipedia article will have something in the order of 100 references, which is hte whole point of an encyclopaedia, to provide you with a beginning pint to your research.

[Ogryn1313]

Who said I haven't read them? Who says I rely on encyclopedias? I don't recall. You sure do like to grasp at straws and read into things.

[Bionca]

Ogryn, it's interestng that you use these two examples. Jerry Falwell and Ward Churchill with 9/11 as a connection.

You know that days after the attack Mr Falwell, on the 700 Club (Right Wing Religious program for those who don't know) blamed gays, feminists, and non-christians for the attack. Stating that the US is losing it's divine protections because of liberal morality (paraphraising on my part, but the direct quote is easy to find) and the mentioned groups are the prime examples.

So, yes Mr. Churchill and his "Little Eichman" comment was horrific. The media roasting he got was earned. Mr Falwell didn't wait a week before putting out some blame that included a good number of people who died on that day. Where was HIS respect for the families who were in mourning? Jerry Falwell's words were and are used to justify bias and discrimination against women who look like me as well as gay men and lesbians. Jerry didn't let people's bodies even get found before his face was on TV getting an unchallenged venue dole out some sweet sweet blame.


And yet, such an unprecedented amount of unimpaired freedom is being abused. Freedom of speech requires responsibility. And many idiots abuse this right. Take the Falwell example. He had a right to say those things he did. And so too did his haters have a right to say what they do about him. And then, before his body is laid to rest all over the internet ignorant and hateful so called intellectuals are celebrating his death and saying vile things. Yeah, we are free speak like this.

But should we? Is it responsible and ethical to say things, especially when his family is in mourning? Was it right for Churchill to condemn the victims of 9/11?

I'm all for free speech. And one can be controversial. But we should all be moral and ethical. And responsible. See, we no longer have civility in debates and discussions. This kind of thing fosters hate speech and intolerance, dillutes intelligent conversation and increases ignorance I think. I don't blame this on the net itself but rather the way people abuse it. It's the people's fault.

Freedom of speech no longer means what it says either. Ever notice a lot of minorities use groups like the ACLU to interfere with the rights of the groups they oppose for example?

So if the internet as media outlet continues to contribute to the decline of intelligent and responsible free speech, then, in my opinion completely worthless and has no redeeming value.

[GRH]

Jerry Falwell's words were and are used to justify bias and discrimination against women who look like me as well as gay men and lesbians. Jerry didn't let people's bodies even get found before his face was on TV getting an unchallenged venue dole out some sweet sweet blame.

I'd dare add for all of you Tranny lover "fags," that Jerry Falwell would include YOU in the list of despicable people that God hates. Don't even begin to quote right-wingers if you've ever logged onto this site.

[Talvenada]

I'd dare add for all of you Tranny lover "fags," that Jerry Falwell would include YOU in the list of despicable people that God hates. Don't even begin to quote right-wingers if you've ever logged onto this site.

GRH,

It would appear to apply to bi-sexuals as well, practicing or not, no?

[Ogryn1313]

Ogryn, it's interestng that you use these two examples. Jerry Falwell and Ward Churchill with 9/11 as a connection.

You know that days after the attack Mr Falwell, on the 700 Club (Right Wing Religious program for those who don't know) blamed gays, feminists, and non-christians for the attack. Stating that the US is losing it's divine protections because of liberal morality (paraphraising on my part, but the direct quote is easy to find) and the mentioned groups are the prime examples.

So, yes Mr. Churchill and his "Little Eichman" comment was horrific. The media roasting he got was earned. Mr Falwell didn't wait a week before putting out some blame that included a good number of people who died on that day. Where was HIS respect for the families who were in mourning? Jerry Falwell's words were and are used to justify bias and discrimination against women who look like me as well as gay men and lesbians. Jerry didn't let people's bodies even get found before his face was on TV getting an unchallenged venue dole out some sweet sweet blame.


Bionca, I feel the point I was trying to make might not have been adequately articulated on my part and thus you misunderstood me. In your reply there you seem to be drawing a moral equivalency between the two men. I'm not interested in which one is the worst person. That's a whole other issue.

The point of my post was to illustrate how people are abusing freedom of speech and being irresponsible in their application of it. I only cited those two as examples. In this case the hate thrown at Falwell after his death as an example of the hatred and irresponsible free speech of one group of people. In the case of Churchill the nature of one man using free speech for promoting himself at the expense of the victims.

The thrust of my point, which I failed to convey, is that free speech is being used as a blanket to condone irresponsibility and hate speech. I never defended Falwell nor attacked Churchill. I am simply trying to show that freedom of speech is a precious gift we shouldn't abuse and use to spout hate speech.

And part of my point is an attempt to show the nature of some liberals and most of the far left are being hypocrites. These are the main bunch who champion free speech and yet look how many (mostly in the left not the libs) use it for hate speech. I know the right does it too. But the right doesn't present itself to Americans as the intellectual elite who wish to save the nation. The far right, in general, shows an ugly face to Americans.

I'm sorry I couldn't articulate this better. And I've probably not done any better this time. But to try to make comparisons on who is the worst (Falwell or Chruchill) is getting off course and away from what I intended to point out.

[Ogryn1313]

I'd dare add for all of you Tranny lover "fags," that Jerry Falwell would include YOU in the list of despicable people that God hates. Don't even begin to quote right-wingers if you've ever logged onto this site.


As for you....I'll say what I wish to say. Free speech. I don't believe I have quoted anyone. Furthermore, name calling is just pathetic. Tranny lovers? Fags? Are you somehow trying to somehow suggest my opinion, or anyone else's on these issues are invalid because we are what we are?

I'll have you know I don't consider myself gay. Yes, I like "trannies." But I'm not a fag. If I were a fag I'd only be interested in men. Not women or tgirls. And to me they are both women.

[sesame]

I'll have you know I don't consider myself gay. Yes, I like "trannies." But I'm not a fag. If I were a fag I'd only be interested in men. Not women or tgirls. And to me they are both women.I agree at least on this point with Ogryn. I too dont like to be labeled as a Fag or a Homo, just because I like transwomen( besides women), actually I am seeking femininity in a Tranny, not another man.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

People like Palin don't care how you like to be labelled, if your not fucking a girl with a pussy, then your a homo as far as they are concerned. They aren't going to go, oh that person with a y chromosomes and penis you are fucking is really a woman?, oh well that's ok then, go right ahead, no religious objections here.

[TracyCoxx]

People like Palin don't care how you like to be labelled, if your not fucking a girl with a pussy, then your a homo as far as they are concerned. They aren't going to go, oh that person with a y chromosomes and penis you are fucking is really a woman?, oh well that's ok then, go right ahead, no religious objections here.

I can't see her doing a lot about it though. Bush would have called shemale lovers fags too, but he hasn't done anything about it.

I'm voting for McCain because he's fiscally conservative, he's strong on foreign policy and he has a good energy policy. Obama has NONE of that. Hopefully McCain will do something about the flood of illegals coming into the country as well. The dems are trying to turn them into voters. I.e. screw our economy so they can get elected. But anyway I just don't see politicians putting tgirl lovers any where near the top of their agenda.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

So lets see, democrats will ruin the economy... hmmmm.

Didn't someone already do that?

[Bionca]

TracyCoxx - Tgirl Lovers may not be high on anyone's list of issues, but issues that impact on, you know, actual living-as-female Transwomen are being discussed. The Patriot Act routinely flags TGs who have not had SRS via Social Security during new hire processing. A company will get a "gender no match" letter with the recommendation that the employee not be hired for fear of a security risk. Since most employeers don't have non-discrimination policies that include gender identity or expression, this means we can get fired/ not hired. It also means that gals who are stealth get outed even if they keep their job. McCain supports the Patriot Act without change to exempt gender matching (since, you know there are 100's of Arab drag queens with bombs pouring into the country - oh wait no there isn't)

McCain, supported Arizona's anti-gay marriage ammendment. Guess who that would affect?

So yeah, McCain is a fiscal Conservative, not helpful for me to get a job really. I suppose the up side of McCain in office and the Patriot act, support against marriage equality, and support for the scary Real ID program would mean more and more "Shemales" in the sex industry.... after all prostitution is the one career nobody asks about your past.

[Bionca]

Bionca, I feel the point I was trying to make might not have been adequately articulated on my part and thus you misunderstood me. In your reply there you seem to be drawing a moral equivalency between the two men. I'm not interested in which one is the worst person. That's a whole other issue.

The point of my post was to illustrate how people are abusing freedom of speech and being irresponsible in their application of it. I only cited those two as examples. In this case the hate thrown at Falwell after his death as an example of the hatred and irresponsible free speech of one group of people. In the case of Churchill the nature of one man using free speech for promoting himself at the expense of the victims.

The thrust of my point, which I failed to convey, is that free speech is being used as a blanket to condone irresponsibility and hate speech. I never defended Falwell nor attacked Churchill. I am simply trying to show that freedom of speech is a precious gift we shouldn't abuse and use to spout hate speech.

And part of my point is an attempt to show the nature of some liberals and most of the far left are being hypocrites. These are the main bunch who champion free speech and yet look how many (mostly in the left not the libs) use it for hate speech. I know the right does it too. But the right doesn't present itself to Americans as the intellectual elite who wish to save the nation. The far right, in general, shows an ugly face to Americans.

I'm sorry I couldn't articulate this better. And I've probably not done any better this time. But to try to make comparisons on who is the worst (Falwell or Chruchill) is getting off course and away from what I intended to point out.


I understand what you were trying to do. I also missed my point I think, by taking your example and running too far with it. The issue of Free Speech is accountability - say something messed up = getting called out. Because of the Internet it is harder to say something and then take it back later. Falwell say some shitty things about innocent people and he got called out for it. Falwell had a history of saying shitty things about dead people, his politicization of religious issues made LIVING difficult for lots of people, so he got some back when he died. Accountability.

Ward Churchill said insesnitive, incorrect, hurtful, probably ant-semetic crap. He got called out, discredited, and ultimately ignored. Any potential insight that he may have contributed to discussing international terrorism (if any) was negated. Accountability.

Hipocracy thrives every place. The "pro family" Congress man who visits a brothel, the "progressive" blogger who thinks it's great fun to mock Ann Coulter by pointing out she has some physical features that could belong to a trans*woman. Political involvement is more than supporting a party or an ideology, it is supporting a philosophy and holding your side to higer standards. The people who parrot the party talking points are just shills.

I'm a Liberal, always have been (socially more than fiscally). I'm way way harsher with my fellow Lefties than I am with any Conservative.

[Tread]

Want to show you a rating about free spech and freedom of press, especially to the US-americans of you. Notice that the United States and Israel are rated two times.
Watch the ranking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_ Index_Ranking

Don't belief everything that you hear in your country and tell it as facts.

[jimnaseum]

God, guts, and Guns...
Election time in the US is better than the Olympics, Football, or anything BECAUSE the truth means nothing, which raises it to an even higher truth. Selling a politician is like selling a breakfast cereal or candy bar, it's about human psychological weakness and opportunities. POWER. You can find the truth two aisles down from reality at the library. We're talkin the WORD of GOD here, and Ann Colter and Karl Rove and Jimmy Carter and Barack O'bama.....aw, forget it.

[TracyCoxx]

So lets see, democrats will ruin the economy... hmmmm.

Didn't someone already do that?

Well lets see... back in november, a pound equaled $2.11. Now it's worth $1.76. I think your economy has bigger problems.

[Ogryn1313]

I understand what you were trying to do. I also missed my point I think, by taking your example and running too far with it. The issue of Free Speech is accountability - say something messed up = getting called out. Because of the Internet it is harder to say something and then take it back later. Falwell say some shitty things about innocent people and he got called out for it. Falwell had a history of saying shitty things about dead people, his politicization of religious issues made LIVING difficult for lots of people, so he got some back when he died. Accountability.

Ward Churchill said insesnitive, incorrect, hurtful, probably ant-semetic crap. He got called out, discredited, and ultimately ignored. Any potential insight that he may have contributed to discussing international terrorism (if any) was negated. Accountability.

Hipocracy thrives every place. The "pro family" Congress man who visits a brothel, the "progressive" blogger who thinks it's great fun to mock Ann Coulter by pointing out she has some physical features that could belong to a trans*woman. Political involvement is more than supporting a party or an ideology, it is supporting a philosophy and holding your side to higer standards. The people who parrot the party talking points are just shills.

I'm a Liberal, always have been (socially more than fiscally). I'm way way harsher with my fellow Lefties than I am with any Conservative.


Very well said. I'm glad you could see where I was going with my posts. It seems I lack the ability to articulate things well.

Accountability. Right to the point. That's what matters. But online I don't see any accountability or means to effect accountability.

You're the right kind of liberal. Seems you measure the passion of the liberal with respect and civility, something the left often lacks. But I don't consider a liberal left. I think lefties are an extreme fringe of the liberals.

[Ogryn1313]

I can't see her doing a lot about it though. Bush would have called shemale lovers fags too, but he hasn't done anything about it.

I'm voting for McCain because he's fiscally conservative, he's strong on foreign policy and he has a good energy policy. Obama has NONE of that. Hopefully McCain will do something about the flood of illegals coming into the country as well. The dems are trying to turn them into voters. I.e. screw our economy so they can get elected. But anyway I just don't see politicians putting tgirl lovers any where near the top of their agenda.


For the record, when the Golden Child of Democats Clinton left office he left it while the nation was in recession. Furthermore those who love to point at his glorious economy fail to remember one of the main influences of this time of prosperity was the "Internet Bubble." Which also collapsed during his administration.

I consider this internet bubble to be more of a thing of the times, something inevitable. Clinton didn't make it happen. So he couldn't be blamed for it collapsing either. But he did leave us in recession. One the current president inherited.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Well lets see... back in november, a pound equaled $2.11. Now it's worth $1.76. I think your economy has bigger problems.

now compare the dollar to the Euro.

[TracyCoxx]

now compare the dollar to the Euro.

Or even worse... the pound to the Euro. Why do you continuously ignore all the faults of your own country while slamming the US every chance you get?

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Why do you continuously ignore all the faults of your own country while slamming the UK every chance you get?

I'm under no illusion that Blair n Brown fucked the economy, I didn't vote for them, I'm not defending them. The topic is on US politics, that's why I'm talking about it. You are the one tooting the economic horn for the republicans, so is there any reason why someone shouldn't point out the reality of the current republican government.

[TracyCoxx]

Why do you continuously ignore all the faults of your own country while slamming the UK every chance you get?
I'm just wondering why someone from the UK is suddenly an expert on the US economy. The depth of your understanding of the US economy seems to be that unpopular Bush is pres (for what I have observed to be largely misunderstood reasons by many people on the internet), and therefore your perceived problems (as seen from the UK) of the US economy must be his fault. That shows a very shallow understand of economics. The economy is affected by a vast array of things. And usually it takes a while for the cause to create an effect in the economy. i.e. The prosperous economy during the Clinton years were because of Bush Sr's policies as well as the internet boom that Ogryn1313 referred to. Clinton didn't just say "hey let's have a technology boom". Those technologies were in development for years and just happened to come to fruition during Clinton's term. If there were economic problems during Bush's first term, for one thing he inherited the results of Clinton's policies, and for another there was 9/11 and we had some butt kicking to do. Yes that was a drain on the economy, but it was a necessary one. No president worth anything at all would let that pass. If you had bothered to look at unemployment rates during Bush's term you'd see that they have been steadily declining since the first half of his 1st term.

You are the one tooting the economic horn for the republicans, so is there any reason why someone shouldn't point out the reality of the current republican government.

I wouldn't expect many people from the UK to know much about the US economy in detail but you seem to have a lot to say about it without showing any real understanding of it.

[Talvenada]

TRACY & ANNA:

This is as close to a cat fight as I've seen on these boards!!

I'm just pulling your legs, or is that something else I'm squeezing?

[Ogryn1313]

It seems every Brit I encounter is an expert on American government and economy. As well as foreign policy experts. Maybe they have a class like "American Failure 101" they must take as a requirement for graduation.

I've not seen anyone bashing England in an insulting fashion. And just because Tracy or I, or anyone else who may, defends America it doesn't mean we ignore the flaws of this nation.

The difference with you, Anna, is you only choose to see flaws and harp on them consistently. While not knowing much about it. Whereas I or Tracy are well aware of the flaws but also choose to see the good things.

Something about most Americans: they accept their nation with all it's good qualities and all of its flaws. They don't ignore the flaws and strive to change things. But they never allow the flaws to cause them to hate their nation.

[hankhavelock]

How hillarious... isn't she the one they like to put forward as a Republican strategist on the tabloid style right radical station Fox News?

[hankhavelock]

she sounds charming, a great dinner party guest no doubt.

HAHAHAHA... especially when you say: "Nice to have you here, Ann... if you'll excuse me but the party is over... I have to join my wife in her bedroom sucking her long, strong, hard cock till I faint as her little pussyboy... after which she'll impregnate me... we're going for twins... here's money for a taxi... ciao baby!"

[ila]

It seems every Brit I encounter is an expert on American government and economy. As well as foreign policy experts. Maybe they have a class like "American Failure 101" they must take as a requirement for graduation.


Schools in many countries around the world teach US history and politics which involves how the government functions. So most people espousing their ideas here actually do know what they are talking about when it comes to the US. Can you say that you have ever studied the history, government, or even geography of any other country?

[Ogryn1313]

Yes I can. I took every single history class my college offered, even beyond the ones required for graduation, and I pretty much live and breathe it. It's my favorite subject.

Admittedly, I've not studied the entire history of all nations. I focused mostly on Germany and Japan, and a few European nations.

But your statement has missed my point. Such people as Anna behave as experts, having a class or not doesn't matter. She has shown nothing but uninformed opinions.

[TracyCoxx]

TRACY & ANNA:

This is as close to a cat fight as I've seen on these boards!!

I'm just pulling your legs, or is that something else I'm squeezing?

Pull away... :turnon: haha