Bigmouth

[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]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

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.

Originally Posted by sesame

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]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by sesame

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]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

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]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by Bionca

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]

Originally Posted by GRH

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by GRH

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]

Originally Posted by ogryn

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Ogryn1313

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/Reporte..._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]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

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]

Originally Posted by Bionca

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

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]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

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.

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

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]

Originally Posted by rhythmic delivery

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

Pull away... haha