Silent America
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=130137
Printed Date: 20 November 2025 at 12:50am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Silent America
Posted By: Bugg
Subject: Silent America
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 9:17am
|
I have also posted this in the Regs so I could get a better.. more mature.. discussion..
But I think you guys deserve it too.. NO FLAMING... ONLY DISCUSS Who else besides me are fed up with the world saying "America only wants to take over the world?" Bill Whittle (ejectejecteject.com) states it perfectly when he says "How many times will we have to do this before our critics are able to discern a pattern? How many provocations and taunts and slander will we have to endure before anti-Americans wake up to the simple truth that brings us home time and time again, which is simply this: For the first time in history, a nation powerful enough to rule the world has simply refused to do so" Do I have to repeat that? For the first time in history, a nation powerful enough to rule the world has simply refused to do so We have REFUSED. We CAN take over the world easily. Not unresisted but still could. Germany has tried- FAILED Rome tried- FAILED England tried- FAILED France tried- FAILED Greece tried- FAILED We don't even THINk about it. Next "Talk to the vaunted “Arab Street” about America. Watch as their eyes glaze over with hatred and loathing and a desire to see us wiped off the face of the earth as criminals and murderers. Then something amazing happens. Time and time again, after expressing their view that there is no higher calling for their sons and daughters than to kill as many Americans as possible, watch what happens when asked if they want to visit the US." ^^ This isn't supposed to mean ALL arabs, it just states a point. "On a table, place a $100 dollar bill, keys to a nearby Mercedes, a steak and lobster dinner and a US green card, and see which one disappears first." How true is this. We as Americans may be the most hated country, but everyone still wants to live here. Whats up with that? The world hates us because we have what they want... let me repharse that, we have what they CAN'T HAVE. They think we don't deserve what we have because we have only been around for 250 years while they have for 2000! We have worked hard for what we have. We are the hardest working country on Earth. Now I will agree with what they say "Americans are arrogant" Its fine to be arrogant if you have a reason to be.. and last I checked.. WE HAVE THE BEST REASON TO BE! I'd rather be an arrogant American the an imbicle like most of the world is... Anyway you can read "Empire" at ejectejecteject.com Empire Reading anything from ejectejecteject.com will completely destroy any argument liberals have... ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 9:23am
| You actually think America could take over the world if we wanted to? That is highly unlikely. Just because we are the most powerful individually does not mean we would succeed. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 9:26am
|
I suggest reading the entire essay at the website before you respond... it's entitled Empire
Oh and to tear up your point--- People thought Rome was too weak/small People thought Greece (Alexander the Great) was too weak/small they got pretty damn close and we are bigger and more technologically advanced -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 9:30am
| There is no logistical way we could ever topple the world. To believe that is to just "rally around the flag" like usual. No, Rome did not conquer the world. They conquered a much less powerful and civilized European continent, but not the whole world. We would not even have enough people to occupy all the surrounding territories, and our military size would be severely lacking when compared to the size of Russia and China together. |
Posted By: bluemunky42
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 9:51am
|
i dont think we could take the world. we hardly have enough men to fight the war as it is, and thats just in some dirtbag country with crash-coursed vagabonds. i agree with the rest of ur point tho, people are all "o screw americans" then when u give them the priveleges of america theyre all over it ------------- 
http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity - http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 9:53am
------------- 
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:01am
|
Did Rome have anough people to occupy all their terrorties? No.
It takes fear Any way off topic Atleast we are more mature now... And also.. Did I ever say Rome conqured the world? NO.. I said they TRIED.. failed -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:06am
|
Funny thing. Arab fundamentalists preach and preach and preach in their own countries and call for our destruction, they call for jihad, they call for the blood of americans to be spilt, they have been brainwashed by their leaders to further their own agendas. But when one of them comes over, they go crazy and party HARD. Gambling, drinking, sex, the whole bit, its like college without the schoolwork. A couple of the terrorists from 911 were like this. They loved alcohol and loved sex and what America had to offer. One of them was dismissed and put on the plan that was shot down by two F-16 that took off from DC and intercepted the 757 in pennsylvania. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors"> 
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:10am
| Read the article. Complete strawman argument. Stupid. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:15am
|
Agreed. Only attacks weakest arguments. Still cannot possibly see where the U.S. is that powerful to take over the world. We don't refuse to take over the world, we can't, we need many other countries like they need us. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:23am
|
That's not that true...
without our (rather sucky at the moment) economy.. whole world would collapse... without Japanese economy... barely even hurts us... -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:24am
|
But this is true for every culture. People hate Americans, because we are arrogant, we go to other countries and out behavior is deplorable. Spring break its cancoon for stupid highschool kids getting drunk and throwing up everywhere. An American goes to france, not even bothering to epreciate the fact that they are an ambassador for the US. They dont bottor to observe the basic mores and folkways of the culture. Wich brings me to my next pet peeve. The very term we call ourselves "American" Ask any Canadian, more so people from South America, they think this is very "Self Rightious" and conceited. We are all "America" We live in the Americas. But we arent American the way we use the word.
Its no wonder throughout the world we are labeled as "Ugly Americans" We dont have much culture. When we go to another country we dont bother to try and learn the language, the average "American" doesnt bother to learn about the culture. So what happens is we end up offending every sensibility they have. They can hate the people, despise the culture, but when you are stared in the face with an oportunity to advance yourself, or on the other end of the spectrum, to party, you are going to take it when you come from a culture that teaches you to do nothing but follow the rules and go with the status quo and dont question religion. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:29am
|
Yes it is true. We rely heavily on other economies for trade. If Canada was to boycott us, we would be devistated in many areas, same with Japan. We are not the powerhouse that does not need other countries. We are, in fact, a part of the world, intermixing with supply and demand needs like everyone else. Dib, I agree with much of your post. Intelligent and thought provoking. |
Bugg wrote:Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:31am
|
For the "American" view.. I beleive other countries coined the term American.. When asked where we are from most peole I know say "I'm from the US" not "Oh, I'm an American"
And to say we have no culture.. partially true We made modern music We made modern art We made modern culture We don't have an old culture, but imagine where the world would be without the things WE invented... TV, Planes, Cars, Radio!, PAINTBALL (  ), INTERNET for God sakes, computers... List goes ON AND ON-------------
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:33am
I didn't say we could live without other countries, I'm just saying we don't rely as heavily on them as they do us, without Japan, we still have 250 some other countries Without our wealth.. what do other countries have? Some might say 250 some other copuntries, not true, how many of those can buy in bulk? -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:39am
| That's irrelevant. We are not as powerful as some think we are. We are simply a part of the world, not the driving force. Modern culture was not only made by us, but by the rest of the world. We have invented many things that have helped society, but many of those objects were also invented and MADE BETTER by other countries. It is give and take in the world, we are one piece to it. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:41am
|
Ok, explain how the things INVENTED by us were made better by other countries? I know something vice-versa we didn't invent the light bulb.. but DID make it BETTER...
And hopefully this qoute will shut you up and make you think... "Many in Europe, especially, have renounced such feelings of nationalism. Nationalism has not played out all too happily in Europe, and so we, who have had nothing but success in this regard, are expected to toe the line and voluntarily scrap our shiny new automobile because the neighbors went and ran theirs over a cliff." -------------
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:44am
And one for the Liberals of the forum 
"Breaking News! Police are at the scene of an urban standoff. Here are the details as they come in: We can see right away that this is not a good neighborhood. Crime is rampant, and, as in most crime-ridden communities, a lot of nasty stuff goes on every day. Now it seems that one lunatic – your standard heavily-armed psychopathic loner – last week had gone next door and shot the hell out of the neighbors. Of course, those neighbors were not exactly the Cunninghams or the Waltons, so there was no 911 call…but still. Anyway, it’s a few hours later and it looks like he’s done it again: now he claims he owns the entire back yard of the people out back. SkyCam 6 is running aerial footage of him kicking down the fence, going into the neighbor's house and shots being fired. The camera work on the ground is shaky as the crews duck for cover, but you can hear the screams from inside. Lots of covered bodies seen coming out and being placed in ambulances. The police arrive, and now he starts shooting at them; just goddam unloading on them. They shoot back, forcing him back into his house; he is severely wounded. They tell him to disarm and come out with his hands up. He shoots out the windows and keeps taking potshots at the police. A tense standoff occurs. 13 hours go by, during which time, the neighborhood Roach Coach arrives on the scene. The police allow the man inside to buy food as a gesture of goodwill. The guy in the roach coach sells him a turkey sandwich for $150 and a can of Coke for $75. As the standoff continues, we can hear him shooting his family inside. The screams are muffled; sounds like he’s got them down in the basement. A few of them manage to make it out the side and back doors; one or two escape. Most are shot in the back. And as the hours grind on, the shots, and the screams, continue. So do the potshots at the police cordon outside. Finally, the police realize that cannot afford to wait any longer. The negotiations have accomplished nothing except to give the lunatic more time to shoot more of his own family members and presumably reload. The only one arguing to continue negotiations is the guy running the Roach Coach: he’s made more money selling $80 hot dogs and $200 ice cream sandwiches for 13 hours than he has in his entire career. The police make a final offer: come out with your hands up! The response is yet more potshots. The SWAT team gets into position. They storm the house! Gunfire! Screaming! The Crazed Loner runs out the front door, lowers his assault rifle at the police, and is cut down in a hail of bullets. A liberal arrives on the scene, now that the danger has passed and the area is secured. He walks over to the dead lunatic, removes the gun from his hand, pulls back the bolt on the lever…empty! He removes the magazine. Empty too! “This man could not have hurt anyone,” he shrieks! “The gun wasn’t loaded! He was murdered in cold blood!” He turns to the TV audience, grabbing the microphone from the reporter…no, wait. Looking closely, I now see that the reporter has gestured wildly for him to step into frame and he is handing him the microphone, smiling, and making ‘go on’ gestures. “Did he come into the police chief’s home and try to kill him? He did not!! The liberal is really getting religion now. He visibly shakes; his eyes bulge and his forehead goes white with rage! “The man who ordered this assault,” he screams, spittle flying in righteous indignation, “knew all along that this gun was empty!!” “He lied!! He lied and people died!!” There was a time when a person making a statement as ridiculous as that would be tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. It would have been good for a laugh for all concerned. In fact, if the social consciences of today had one particle of the wit and genius that Mark Twain had, they might have said, as he did: “if it weren’t for the honor and glory of the thing, I’d just as soon walk.”" Exerpt from Strength Part 2 ejectejecteject.com -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:44am
|
We may have invented television, but it is the Japanese corporations creating better sets and more complex technology. We may have created vehicles, but subjectively, it is European countries that have produced the most sought after and most high performance vehicles. That quote does and says nothing. What's good for the goose is not always what's good for the gander. I admire how Europe does not consider nationalism important, it shows diversity. That story made absolutely no sense. I am upset that I actually wasted my time reading something that horribly stereotypical. You should be ashamed. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:46am
|
Diversity is good, ignorance is bad... you should know this better than anyone... -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:47am
| You truly have lost touch with reality. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:48am
|
You want reality... take 5 minutes and read this WHOLE thing...
This will throw out any arguement against the Iraq conflict Innocent people, innocent children will die in this war. That is true. Innocent people will die at our hand. But let us never forget that action is visible and direct, but that inaction also bears consequences. We will do everything in our power to limit civilian causalties in this war. In fact, during the days and weeks ahead, we will see something unheard of in military history: a campaign designed not only to minimize civilian casualties, but one aimed at killing as few enemy soldiers as possible. We have already dropped leaflets on Iraqi regular army units, telling them that if they remain in their positions they will not be harmed, but if they mass for a counterattack, we will destroy them. The Iraqi army has recent experience in this matter, both with our destructive capabilities and our generosity and kindness to prisoners of war. Saddam's miserable, poorly-fed and disgracefully-led conscripts have no love for the man. That is why he consolidated what loyal soldiers he had into the Republican Guard. This body, too, became understandably unreliable after Saddam's bloodthirsty and paranoid purges, so he created the Special Republican Guard, a further decimated cadre that may in fact fight for him, since they are the predators at the top of this dictatorial food chain, and therefore have the most to lose and, certainly, the most to fear from an outraged and oppressed populace. I fervently hope that Iraqi regular-army conscripts decide to sit this one out. No one who watched them surrender, kissing the garments of American sergeants, could feel anything but compassion and pity for these men. I do believe that those that do chose to fight will be the hard core element of Saddam’s blood-stained police state, the sadists and executioners who have tortured and murdered their own people on Saddam Hussein’s orders for decades. Don’t forget that. Don’t forget the number that have disappeared in the night during his monstrous reign of terror. Don’t forget well-documented, disgustingly common accounts of the children tortured to death in front of their parents, of girls raped in front of their fathers, not to mention the roll-calls of horror that will emerge when that evil is finally swept away. And finally, don’t forget your friends and family, the good people you work and play with, the innocent men, women and children of New York or Los Angeles or Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Boston, or whichever city we may condemn to radioactive vapor because we were too cowardly and indecisive to act on what we knew to be a threat. We have thousands of nuclear weapons…it’s hypocritical to say Iraq can not have them also. We have had nuclear weapons for almost sixty years now. They have been used, twice, within the first days of that ownership to end the most horrible war in history and prevent many times the number of casualties, on both sides, that would have been lost had the war continued through the invasion of Japan. Despite many provocations, they have not been used since then. We have had chemical weapons for even longer. Saddam, on the other hand, used his chemical weapons the instant he got his hands on them: first on the Iranians and then on his own Kurds – this after not once being used by any nation during all the desperate years of World War II. What does that tell you? Many adults are given alcohol, credit cards, automobiles, guns and jet aircraft, once they have shown themselves worthy of the responsibility. We do not put these things in the hands of four year olds, and with very good reason. It may seem hypocritical to you; to me, the idea of keeping a drunken second-grader from waving around a loaded automatic while behind the controls of a hurtling 747 just makes sense. This war is all about oil. Demonstrably false for the reasons listed above. Nevertheless, let’s grant the premise. Oil is the only power source currently available to meet the needs of our post-industrial society. Not only our automobiles depend on this oil: it is also a primary source of electrical energy in this country, and is essential to the plastics we use in everything from MRI machines to CD players. To say this war is all about oil is factually identical to saying that this war is all about maintaining our society and lifestyle. If that is not worth fighting for, what is? One may find that offensive ideologically, but as I see it, to be true to such a philosophy you must either drive a solar-powered electric car, ride a horse or a bicycle, or walk. You must remove your home from the city power grid. You must discard all plastic items. You must also abandon television, radios and movies, all of which rely on electricity generated by oil. You must forgo modern medicine, surgery and dentistry, likewise driven by oil-fired electricity at many stages. You must grow your own food. Do all of these things, and you will have my frank admiration for your dedication to a moral cause. Do anything less and you are a hypocrite mouthing an easy lie in an attempt to strike a pose of moral superiority. Furthermore, people who apply this argument are usually accusing us of stealing the oil. Now I suppose it's theoretically possible that everyone else at the gas station gets a wink, a nod and a don't be silly hand gesture when they try to pay for their gas -- me, I'm shelling out $1.83 a gallon for the privilege. There has been a river, a Mississippi of our fives and tens and twenty-dollar bills flowing into the middle east for decades now. The idea that most of this has been squandered on scores of madly extravagant palaces, solid-gold toilets and leggy hookers should only further direct all fair-minded people toward the cause of Invasion. One of the many reasons I support this action in Iraq is because the people of that nation are sitting on a significant hunk of loose change. It is indeed being stolen from them -- and I for one am convinced that once we deal with the thief that stole it, those revenues will be of enormous benefit to the people of Iraq, and aid them in the rebuilding of their country. It is true we depend on oil for our lifestyle. However, if you look at it objectively, you might agree that oil does no one any good hundreds of feet below a barren desert. For us it helps power our society; for them it is a valuable commodity and a legitimate means of transferring a lot of our cash into their pockets. My car does not care where that oil comes from, but I do. And if my $1.83 / gallon can in the future go to the people of Iraq, I would find that both a blessing and a relief. Still, the whole point is, as I mentioned, logically flawed -- fatally flawed. Gas is cheaper now, in adjusted dollars, than it has ever been. Evil Oil KKKorporations don't need more oil on the market: it depresses the price. More of something makes it cheaper; less of something makes it more expensive. Although I do understand why this confuses some people -- the whole supply / demand concept does seem to give the far left a great deal of trouble. When gasoline is $13 dollars per gallon and lines stretch for miles around empty service stations, THEN will I begin to reasonably suspect this political decision has oil-based overtones. We need a ‘smoking gun’ from the UN inspectors. The problem with a smoking gun is you can't find it until it's gone off. It is clear from documented reports of bribery attempts on UN Inspectors on the part of the Iraqis, to French inspectors tipping off Saddam about team destinations, that to accept this argument we de facto lose the game. This is why it is so popular. It ignores reams of testimony from defecting scientists, and all of the other evidence stated above. In fact, it raises the question that ignoring such a mountain of existing evidence requires such a willful burying of one’s head in the sand as to make any proof insufficient. To such people, the smoking gun they require is a pile of radioactive rubble where Tel Aviv once stood, or legions of dead commuters in the London Underground, or the wildfire spread of smallpox through greater Chicago and beyond. Scores of independent sources repeatedly and emphatically demonstrate that Iraq has massive quantities of biological and chemical weapons, and is working frantically to attain nuclear ones. Those unconvinced by the existing evidence will be convinced by nothing less than their actual use against our military or civilians. To hell with those people. North Korea admits to having nuclear weapons and is threatening the region. They are a greater threat and must be dealt with first. That a rogue nation can threaten the three most prosperous economies of Asia with nuclear blackmail (although, admittedly, China would not likely be as threatened as South Korea or Japan) does indeed raise a troubling question. And that question is, with such a clear example before our eyes, who can not believe that removing such a powerful lever from the hands of Saddam Hussein should not be job #1? North Korea already has these weapons. We cannot undo that. We can only prevent that from happening in the future. Our options are dramatically reduced, and the consequences of miscalculation on either side astronomically raised, by such weapons in the hands of such an unbalanced, isolated and desperate regime. This is precisely why we must intervene in Iraq. It is hypocritical and contradictory to negotiate with North Korea, which already has nuclear weapons, and advocate war on Iraq, which does not. I will grant that it may appear so at first glance. But consider these two points: First, we relied on negotiations, diplomacy and signed agreements in order to prevent North Korea from obtaining these weapons. They developed them despite these negotiations and in direct violation of these international agreements. There are those who oppose this war, who say we should try this spectacularly unsuccessful strategy with Iraq. I would like to sell these people their next automobile. Second, North Korea thinks they can pressure us while we are preoccupied with Iraq. They are betting their empty, crop-free farm on this. They want us to become alarmed, right now. They hope to blackmail us before the last vestiges of their state collapses around them. That is a trap we have so far avoided. There is a reason we treat Iraq in one fashion and North Korea in another. It is a very simple reason. In the case of North Korea, time is on our side; with Saddam, time works against us. This is not hypocrisy, it is sound and cogent strategic thinking. And finally, The United States has no right to launch a pre-emptive attack; we can only respond if we are attacked. This is the most pernicious and dangerous argument of all, because it plays directly into our natural revulsion at being an aggressor and causing the deaths of innocent civilians. As I mentioned, I see both Iraq’s attack on Kuwait, and the Islamicist attacks on 9/11, as the pre-emptive attacks that started this pending conflict. But perhaps you do not buy that argument. Well, consider this: We were attacked before, on December 7th, 1941, by a vast navy that had been assembling for years. We watched the Japanese build the Pearl Harbor fleet. We did nothing. We – the French and English especially – also did nothing as a bitter and vengeful Germany grew stronger and more daring. Appeasement was all the rage back then. In the years following that naval sneak attack, and after a war in which unchecked militarism nearly brought civilization to ruin, it made sense to think that we could stay free by being strong enough to deter or repel any invasion. We would do – indeed, we have done – whatever it took to create a defense so formidable that the mere idea of defeating it has become unthinkable, and to willingly provoke it becomes an act of state suicide. Those days are gone. We face an enemy willing – eager – to carry a suitcase into Times Square, press a button, and in one millisecond inflict more casualties on the United States than we have seen in all the wars of our history, combined. It is an image so horrible that many simply refuse to believe it. -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:51am
| It's partisan hackaray. One sided thought that stereotypes all who may question the validity of the war. It doesn't matter that there aren't WMD's, apparantly we had to because we were on the verge of another Cuban Missle Crisis (hardly). Acting as if 9-11 was the end all be all of attacks that should start a war is ridiculous. We have always been at war with terrorists (other than when we supply them). To "rally around the flag" is to just get covered and end up blinding yourself. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:53am
|
I said take 5 minutes to read that post in full detail.. what do you do? Come up with a 2 minute response...
You want arrogance? America is the only country on EARTH to bury privates next to Generals.. only country where Privates get same burial as Generals... ONLY ONE -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:55am
| So? You don't deserve a well thought post because you'll just search the web to find a politically one-sided article to copy and paste. I could do the same but you'd whine and complain and say that it's just liberals not knowing what they are talking about. Who cares if they bury privates next to generals, if we were really well thought out, rational, and trying to be peaceful, we wouldn't have to bury those soldiers in the first place. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:57am
|
Dude, go look for a Liberal essay i don't care, I admit that the guy I'm taking these qoutes from is smarter then me, AND YOU. SO if you take a well written essay from a Lib, he's smarter then you and ME (as long as it isn't Michael Moore...)
-------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:59am
|
Bugg - you really should try thinking for yourself. You apparently don't understand the concept of a straw man argument, since you keep posting them. I'll explain: Your silly standoff story is the perfect example. It sets out completely extreme facts, then claims that "they" are taking an extreme position (which they are not), and then argues against this extreme and obviously wrong position. Only problem: You are arguing against a position that nobody endorses. Another example: First, I state "Republicans want to take over the world!" Then, I explain why taking over the world is obviously a bad idea. The crowd cheers and hates Republicans. Of course, "Republicans" don't want to take over the world, but it sounded good when I said it, and it made a good straw man, and the crowd bought it. Straw man argument: making up a fake position/argument so that you can take it down in convincing fashion. You have posted several, and the eject website is full of them. |
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 10:59am
| "As long as it isn't Michael Moore." Wow, way to not be conceded. It's impossible to speak to someone so close-minded. I won't ask who you picked your articles from, because I refuse to stoop to your level. Just because a professer states his or her opinion, doesn't make it the right one. Throwing someone else's opinion in the mix just brings out the fact you need someone else's help. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 11:00am
|
This is how our economy works. Im going to use the US and Japan as a basic example.
Japan has no natural resources. Very little land but lots and lots of people. Their economy is based largely on information and car companys. But im going to focus on the car companys here. The US has lots and lots of natural recourses, one of our biggest exports is steel. We make steel and synthesise it and sell it to other countries. Japan buys this steel and makes a Subaru out of it. Then Mr.Smith goes to the subaru dealership and buys himself a car. The world operates on a SYSTEM. There is no engine, or driving force, its a lot like the food chain, if one link is hurt, the rest suffer. This is because it is a system. It relies heavily on a give and take cycle. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 11:04am
And sure it is his opinion, but it's backed up by facts... if you would take the time to read, READ, the articles then you would see As for the strawman arguement, I see what you mean, but I also stated that these are still my opinions, he just phrases them better, I'm 16, I'm not going to be able to write like he does. There are people smarter then me AND you. Get used to it. I like how he writes Sure he is biased, but if you read the book (I KNOW you havn't) you would see he's not even FOR Bush, he is just stating the facts -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 11:05am
You must not understand the military at all. Show me one General that would not be proud as hell to be burried next to a man that was killed in combat. You will not find one i promise you. What IS arrogant would be a general that would hate to be cought dead next to someone of lower rank or status. That is arrogance. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 11:08am
|
And hence, thats what I said, America is the only country to bury Generals killed in combat next to privates killed driving home, colonels killed flying a cessna next to majors fighting oppression, we are the ONLY country to do this, whether or not they want to. Does England? No
Does France? DO they even have a memorial cemetary? EDIT: I respect your guys opinions and what you're saying, why don't you? I said no flaming, have a nice debate.. what am I being called? A "strawman" advacator, ignorant, arrogant (this one i agree with )-------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 11:10am
|
Check.
And you are done, quit with the whole "Hate the frenchmen" thing, its old and moronic, of course the french have memorial cemetaries. In fact they have more than we do. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 11:15am
|
Ok, I never said hate the french.. And when I said "Do they have them?" I honestly didn't know, thats what we call a QUESTION... hence the QUESTION mark (?)
Anyway, I guess I was wrong about the maturity, so rest of my "Limbaugh Post" wil be inside the regs forum, read 'em if you want, post in T&O if you want, I'm done with inmaturity Thats why I have 2 stars and you have one, even with a thousand more post.... -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 11:17am
|
You have shown your maturity here. We have lots of posters here with one stars. And we have lots with 2 that are very imiture. Doesnt mean much till the star system gets fixed anyway. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 11:17am
| I agree with DB and Clark's opinions on this matter. Reading his book and backing it up with facts doesn't make him right. I have tons of books that would refute all of those facts as made up. So who's right? I don't post them because I refuse to let someone else think for myself. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 11:19am
|
Not letting someone think for me, but you guys should know that most teens don't make sense when we write, and I'm no exception... so I use peoples writing I agree 100% with that make sense... -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 11:20am
|
Where one report says one thing. I will find 5 more that say the complete opposite. I dont believe any partisan report. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 1:48pm
|
Every report on every news channel is partisian, so saying you don't belive any partisian report is like saying you don't believe news.
Example "51% of the country is going to vote for Kerry" What happened? 51% went for Bush Who reported this? Partisian CNN MSNBC and CNBC -------------
|
Posted By: eaglesin05
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 1:54pm
Thats 100% correect. We have the technoligy but not the man power. ------------- Camo'd 98C Remote Polished internals Dbl trigger 14" J&J Ceramic Barrel Rocket Cock 2 Trigger Slop Mod 12V Revvy 03' Dye stikies R/T Drop Forward |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 1:54pm
|
There is a difference between "partisan" and "biased", Bugg. Biased can't be avoided, but at least biased reporting is honest. Partisan "reporting" is intellectually dishonest. Entirely different matter. Yet both should indeed be viewed with suspicion. Rational people should be as critical of what is seen on CNN as what they get from any other source. BTW - your "example" of 51% isn't reporting. That's a prediction, and entirely unrelated to the point I think you are trying to make. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 1:56pm
|
Actually it is reporting... "51% of exit pollers said theya re voting for Kerry"
And also, CNN is partisian, and so is Fox News, granted I'm probably naiive for listening only to Fox, but if anything I guess only some BBC times aren't -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 2:03pm
|
Yes, that is reporting, but that is not what you posted initially. Big difference. And this statement was entirely accurate. The exit poll was wrong, but that doesn't affect the accuracy of the reporting.
Semantics games are a bit silly, but I hope that you can see the difference between eject.com and Fox News reporting (not their hosted shows). They are of an entirely different quality. Surely this is obvious to you? Limbaugh/eject.com/Hannity - partisan hackery Fox News generally - somewhat biased reporting Two entirely different planets of information presentation.
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 2:13pm
|
I can't deny that I'm partisian (look at title)
But you also have to know the difference between a friendly debate and flaming me for what I'm typing I know it wasn't you specifically, but point still stands -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 2:33pm
|
And my point being that partisan is not good. Partisan is NEVER good. Partisan is BAD, and not something you should be party to. Ever. Partisan is closed-minded. Partisan is irrational. Partisan is supporting "your team" even when your team is wrong. Partisan is not caring whether your team is wrong or not, because it is your team. Partisan is fine for sporting events. In real life it is just a bad way to be. |
Posted By: bluemunky42
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 2:44pm
yeah but there goes most of our cars -------------
http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity - http://www.freewebs.com/hazedinsanity |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 3:44pm
Thats why you should watch CNN, MSNBC, BBC all news sources you can get your hands on, as far as politics is concerned, more often than not, the truth is usualy somewhere in the middle. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 3:46pm
|
Well watching 2 of the 3 most liberal channles won't help me
anyway, ok let me rephrase that, I'm partisian on most occasions, I won't always go with what Bush or the GOP says, but more so than the Libs -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 3:48pm
|
Im a republican through and through, i dont know what channels are libran or concervative and i dont really care, i watch em all. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 3:57pm
|
Please, oh please, explain to me what a "lib" is. Honestly, I want to know. Is it just a random slur you toss at people you don't agree with? Is this an actual group of people? If so, who? Please elaborate, explain, and define. What makes a person a "lib"? |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 4:14pm
|
I know you're being sarcastic but I will anyways
Lib= Liberal= Political party often affiliated with democrats Liberal is to democrat like COnservative is to Republican, although they aren't mutually exclusive -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 4:25pm
|
Not helpful. I am not a member of the Democratic party. How do I know if I am a Liberal or not?
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 5:10pm
|
Liberals are hte oppisite of conservatives
any more explanation needed.. go to dictionary.com -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 6:55pm
|
That's not helpful either, Bugg. "Opposites of conservatives" is not a definition, but a punt. And I don't care what the dictionary says - I want YOUR definition. What do YOU mean when you say "Liberal". Yes, this is a trick question, because I don't think you have a meaningful answer. I think "Liberal" is a buzzword that you (and "others") hide behind when you can't back up your position. "Liberal" is a convenient bogeyman to toss around and blame everything bad on, a bogeyman to disagree with and have fake arguments with. That's what I think. Please prove me wrong. |
Posted By: untouchable555
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 7:24pm
------------- Tippmann 98c 20 ounce Co2 tank |
Posted By: HITMAN 4 HIRE
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 7:37pm
|
thats not possible, because they're going to take over us. Asia and Russia are already building there armies and doing recon missions now... even after hundreds of years of hating each other. Asia is taking over the economy and the euro will probably take over the American dollar. scary isn't it... suppost to happen if you study the bible and listen to some of the preachers on tv. freaked me out when i heard it, but it's possible and all the signs are out there. ------------- http://img56.imageshack.us/my.php?image=27278mo.jpg">  Because I can.
|
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 8:03pm
|
The definitons of major political affiliations as I've come to know them (in my infinitely wise 17 years...) Liberal (Democrat) = in favor of more government involvement in the everyday lives of people; also in favor of more modern stances on social issues: ie pro life, pro **edited** marriage, pro affirmative action, etc, etc Conservative (Republican) = Prefers less centralized government involvement and more state powers. Favors lower taxes and less government programs that are evident in a person's every day life. Also tends to take a more traditional standpoint when it comes to issues such as abortion, **edited** marriage, etc, etc. Libertarian = Fiscally conservative and sociall liberal. Favors very limited government involvement. "Leave the people to themselves" Populist = Opposite of Libertarian...fiscally liberal and socially conservative...pretty much, these guys suck. ------------- 
|
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 8:30pm
bump. Hey Bugg, what does rushlimbaugh.com have for an answer? And to answer your original question, the U.S. is doing a fine job at taking over the world, mostly non-militarily. Before Iran had Khomeni, they had a U.S. friendly Shah who we installed with the CIA. We helped depose Mossadegh, who interestingly, was democratically elected by the Irani people. We were in the process of remodeling their country in our image when the muslims threw us out. (I thought we liked democratic elections.) When the democratically elected Omar Torrijos of Panama would not give us back the canal that Carter gave to him, we assassinated him by blowing up his plane. Then, after we could not buy off Noriego, we attacked Panama completely unprovoked to depose him. His mistake was asking the japanese to build a larger canal, and not offering the job to Bechtel, whose president was our secretary of state at the time. We then liberated Kuwait from Iraq, who did essentially the same thing as we did in Panama. And, we have Venezuela who owes the World Bank 50% of its gross national product every year to pay back all of the construction projects we completed for them, namely by Kellog, Brown and Root, Halliburton, and Bechtel. They sell us oil to keep from defaulting on their loans. We are an empire. Have no doubts. P.S. the cost of those construction projects that dam up rivers and destroy rain forests is a large contribution to the 24,000 people who starve to death daily. ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: rancidpnk13
Date Posted: 04 April 2005 at 8:49pm
|
well guys, he has two stars and an internet site to copy and paste from...so i guess he's been here longer than me or any of you, even tho most of us have been here since the "old blue". but he's got two stars so he's better than us. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 7:52pm
Anyway, rushlimbaugh.com? thats a pay site, I don't wnt to pay for what I can listen to on the radio thank you. If you guys would quit flaming me and actually read atelast EMPIRE at that website, he goes into detail about us not being an empire of the land, but of the mind where we affect everyone by what we do, just please read it before you comment any further... I'm not the only republican on this forum yet i'm the most flamed (probably couse I like limp bizkit, or couse I bring up good points...) -------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 7:56pm
|
So what's a liberal?
------------- 
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 8:01pm
|
He told us! The oposite of a conservitive! GOSH
*Pulls up some popcorn* ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 8:35pm
|
Bugg, you do NOT make good points and you do NOT listen to good music. I think this thread is pretty much over. -------------
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 8:37pm
|
Opinions opinions... opinions are like assholes everyone has one and they all stink...
I think you're an idiot, i'm entitled to my opinion you are to yours... now quit dissing em couse of what music I like... couse millions of other people do too... Talk about immature -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 8:43pm
|
I am vaguely amused that you are more offended by insults to your taste in music than anything else... :) But seriously - I read a bunch of "articles" on the eject site, and they all suck. Horribly. You shouldn't read that stuff. It's bad for you. Seriously, I'm trying to help you. You will not learn anything from this guy, you will not learn anything from Limbaugh or Hannity. These people do not convey information, they only convey opinions, and usually poorly supported opinions. You should seek out information so you can learn, not just regurgitate other people's half-baked thoughts. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 8:49pm
|
Have you checked CNN lately? A lot of it is opinions too...
Look at news papers, opinions pages I like opinions, I'm fine with opinions, but you attack me and i get pissed -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 9:13pm
|
Newspapers have facts with some opinions thrown in. Same with CNN and most broadcast news. Limbaugh et al. are the opposite. 99% opinion, 1% fact - and that 1% is usually distorted. A little opinion is not a bad thing - but opinions without facts are useless. |
Posted By: newport
Date Posted: 05 April 2005 at 9:14pm
|
You get pissed for stupid stuff. Nothing would have gone any further
than the initial little jest if you didn't go crazy and write whole
anthologies about how awesome you think the band is, and how everyone
is wrong/ignorant if they hate them. BTW--your political views are painfully skewed, but tis all opinion, no? -------------
|
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 06 April 2005 at 7:01am
Rush and SOMTIMES Hannity are just there for entertainment... something you don't understand but I do -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 06 April 2005 at 8:42am
|
If only that were true - but just about ALL of your posts in currently active T&O threads directly contradict this statement. Is eject.com also "just for entertainment"? Because it certainly seems like you have been touting the substance of the place for the last several days... Sorry - this copout won't work. BTW - nice sig. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 06 April 2005 at 9:58am
|
You aren't reading my post right then, do I mention Rush or Hannity? No
And do I state that everything or anything at eject.com is right? No I say those are opinions, and that IMO they are well written essays, I never said that they were factualy news. -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 06 April 2005 at 10:35am
|
Yeah right. You posted those because you follow them like scripture. Then when you get bashed you act like they are just simple tools to use for reference...pick a side. |
Posted By: Bugg
Date Posted: 06 April 2005 at 10:48am
|
I did pick a side, I said I know they aren't facts and that I just posted them on here for a friendly discussion, whcih inside T&O can't happen, things are much better in Regs... too many immature people in this one -------------
|
Posted By: Liquid3
Date Posted: 06 April 2005 at 12:18pm
| Propaganda is Propaganda. Thiers, ours what's the difference. It all seperates us and allows for no comprimise. You step off the cliff even before you start the disscussion with the assumption that We are better than them. |