quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
WOW. I am VERY impressed that you managed to cram so much ignorance and stupidity into one itty-bitty OP. That is truly an art.

---

quote:

---

Belgians Lead Push for Regime Change in America by Phil Lebovits
Spurred by reports of an aggressive military build-up and failure to reign in corporate terrorists, the government of Belgium is pressing for a pre-emptive strike against the regime of George W. Bush."We cannot sit idly by and eat our delicious chocolates while the United States government engages in a policy of harassment," Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, said in a nationally televised address to the Belgian people. "Now is the time for action. We cannot waffle."

Recent reports from Belgian intelligence sources indicate that the United States is now in possession of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological and nuclear. "We know that the United States has nuclear weapons and that they have actually used them in the past," intoned the Prime Minister. "There is no reason to think they will not use them in the future." Verhofstadt is insisting that United Nations weapon inspectors be given "unfettered access to the massive stockpiles" of weapons, and that they be destroyed immediately. "We stand at the crossroads," pleaded Verhofstadt. "Either the United States agrees to our demands, or we will be forced to put down our delicious chocolates and lead the way for permanent regime change. Remember, my dear Walloons, the current clique in Washington wa! s elected in direct contravention of the will of the American people. Regime change will be welcomed by their citizens."

Reaction to the speech throughout Europe was swift. "We stand with our Belgian brothers," offered French President Jacques Chirac. "France is willing to commit thirtyfive troops and many cases of fine champagne to the cause. We cannot stand on the sidelines enjoying our delicious baguettes while our comrades from Antwerp go for it alone. Let me assure the dear Prime Minister; France is with you, almost. "Russian President Vladimir Putin did not mince any words. "Again, it is the powerful Belgians who must lead the world against aggression and American hegemony. Russia stands with her European allies and insists that theUnited States disarm unilaterally. I only wish we too had delicious foods." Following the speech, the mood at the White House was one of defiance. "Let the Belgians make their empty threats,"! said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. "We are urging Hershey's and Mars and other fine American chocolate makers to increase their yummy output by twohundred percent in the coming weeks. We intend to break up the evil-doing Belgian chocolate cartel once and for all." Vice President Dick Cheney was even more bellicose. Speaking directly underneath Karl Rove from an undisclosed underground bunker, the Vice President warned of dire consequences should Belgium make a pre-emptive strike. "We are prepared to strike back with alarming force," said Cheney. "The Belgians cannot bully us. They may be the world's only superpower, but we here in America have God on our side. To hell with their delicious chocolate treats."

Verhofstadt, while unyielding in tone and substance, did offer the Americans a plausible way out. "I call upon George W. Bush to capture Sheik Kenneth Lay, Imam Dennis Kozlowski, and the entire Worldcom terrorist organization,and to hand them over to an international tribunal. The United States can no longer harbour agents of terrorism. You are either with us or against us." Back in Washington, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice were trying eagerly to persuade President Bush that there was indeed a country named Belgium.

---

quote:

---

The US president was selected by a majority of one on a biased panel of judges. The US upholds brutal and violent regimes in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Guatemala, South Korea, and elsewhere. The US denies its own people basic human rights such as free health care. The US funds right-wing terrorists operating in Columbia and Cuba (to name but two countries) and its own CIA carries out terrorism. The US continually ignore UN resolutions on the Cuba blockade, as well as international treaties such as Kyoto. We'll use Blair's own logic: let's invade America!

---

First of all, the president was elected by the Electoral College, fairly and legitimately. Second, last time I checked, there was no blockade on Cuba, and hadn't been for forty years. International treaties are only binding to the countries that have adopted them, and since our Congress never adopted Kyoto, what is the US "ignoring"? We acknowledge that everyone else is ready to ratify it (though interestingly enough, few countries have). Free health-care IS available to US citizens who can't afford private insurance or are too sick to work, though the claiming of it as a basic human right is in the eye of the beholder only.

And that's just the stuff that's common knowledge. The OP is, in all respects, a blithering moron.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Ah, cross post. Well, I have refuted the incredibly BASIC errors in your OP. Go read something that's not on the world socialist website, okay?
 

---

Posted by auntbeast (# 377) on :
 
IBP, I love it. I think I must post this so that all of the choclate freaks in my office can sign up and go to the aid of Belgium.

As for invading the US, Symon has a point. I have never figured out why it is OK for the USA to do/have all the things they want to take the rest of us to war to keep from the countries they don't like and then claim moral high ground. Fine, kill the rest of us to keep your position. That is what war is for. But skip the rhetoric about it being for our own good. The good guys and the bad guys get hard to figure out when it comes to international politics.

I would however suggest the if someone is going to go after the USA, invasion is not an option, that is why terrorism has been the chosen method. Personally, I prefer a chocolate/champagne embargo, or some other less bloody option than war. (I think it was)Marge Piercy wrote a great short piece once about a system we should adopt that works for birds... Each country would trot out its leader in best plummage and the females of the species would vote on which one was the best and then that ones country would have superiority and set of rights over the other.

To the chocolates troops!

Auntbeast
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It is a far cry from "the US has these things as well" to "therefore we should invade the US". Seeing as I'm not in favour of invading Iraq anyway, it is academic.

I have long been critical of the West (in general) having weapons of mass destruction. I am well aware that others think differently. My opposition dates from a long, long time before the current situation was, well, current... but that's by the by; I've never used it as an argument to invade anywhere.

Another important issue you might want to consider is that the USA is a democracy, and therefore its leaders can be swayed by public opinion. If the case against posession of WoMD is strong, present it. If the case against US foreign policy is strong, again, work to convince people. You may find it a little more tricky to influence Iraqi policy in this manner.

Yes, the USA has used nuclear weapons in war. Yes, I think it was wrong to do so. But, again, there is a massive difference between the circumstances in which this occured and the circumstances in which Saddam Hussein has used WoMD.

Unfortunately, Symon, what good points there might have been in your OP are ruined by being embedded in factually erroneous material, and stated in a rather silly form of rhetoric. I see a devil at the top of my screen picking up the posts, not a comedian.
 

---

Posted by Symon (# 246) on :
 
Thanks, Erin, for putting up an argument. You say that Bush was elected fairly by the electoral college. I will not here go into how undemocratic the idea of the electoral college is in itself, because Bush was clearly *not* elected by it. Forgive my British naivety, but I had always supposed that in order for voting to be meaningful it was necessary to count the votes. If they are not all counted, nobody's won anything. That a panel of judges - some of whom had links to Bush - ruled him to be elected does not mean that he was. There *is* a blockade on Cuba, with it being very hard to travel there from the US (where did you get the idea from, Erin, that the blockade no longer existed?), and the US continues to ignore the UN's resoluntions on the blockade on Cuba (when the UN has its annual vote on Cuba, there are usually 3 or 4 countries only voting in favour of the blockade, with a similar number abstaining; even the UK manages to oppose Washington on this one, and vote against the blockade). I am not, I admit, an expert on the health care situation in the USA, but if "free health care" is means-tested then it is not "free health care" as I understand the term. True, whether or not it constitutes a human right is a matter of opinion. Some would argue that my right to criticise my government when nobody can hear me and it will have no impact is more important than my right to free health care (just about still enjoyed in the UK). I disagree. I cannot see what more basic rights a citizen can claim from his society than engough to eat, decent housing, useful work, and free access to health care and education. And Erin, you never answered the point about the USA's support for right-wing terrorism throughout the globe. Incidentally, none of the comments I made are quoted from a "world socialist website". Most socialist webistes are, I freely admit, fairly crap.

Tahnks for your answer, Erin.
 

---

Posted by Symon (# 246) on :
 
Liberal backslider - thanks for your post. I was, of course, being ironic when I suggested invading America; I am not *seriously* in favour of doing so. This was *meant* as a flippant post.

When you say that the USA is a democracy, I have to disagree. I accept its more democratic than Iraq, but it is still far from being genuinely democratic. You can choose between a very right-wing party (the Democracts) and an extremely right-wing party (the Republicans). Not that this choice means much when they don't can't the votes and a panel of judges with dubious links chooses the winner. Also, I would argue that there can be no political democracy wihtout economic democracy. How can the people of the US run the county when its wealth is owned by a tiny minority?

If you think there are other factual inaccuracies in my post, liberal backslider, please point them out, and I will respond. However, bear in mind that if I had intended my post to be entirely serious I would have posted it on Purgatory.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
The Electoral College is in our Constitution, and is designed to prevent the huge states from tromping all over the smaller states. And the general election "picks" the Electoral College, so it is hardly undemocratic. I don't have the inclination to go into a detailed explanation of it now, but I think that your admitted lack of knowledge about the process would indicate to you that maybe you shouldn't judge it as being undemocratic. Understand it first, then make judgments.

By blockade, do you mean US sanctions and refusing to trade with Cuba? The US can refuse to trade with whoever it wants, though I think the stance on this is STUPID -- the biggest and most effective weapon the US has is free trade. The only Cuban blockade I'm aware of came during the Cuban missile crisis, and that was in the early 60s.

I cannot answer the stuff about the US supporting "regimes" because I think we're operating in two different worlds here. Any comparison which groups Israel with Saudi Arabia is completely invalid and represents a mindset that I simply cannot effectively argue against.
 

---

Posted by Mr Pete (# 3606) on :
 
Hmmmm.

Whilst Erin is correct about there being no blockade on Cuba the US has stated it will refuse to trade with any nation who trades with Cuba.

On the whole issue on WMDs/human rights, I find it particularly interesting that the US hasn't proposed checks and attacks on North Korea and some others...maybe the fact is the Bush is fairly certain there are no WMDs in Iraq so he can have his little war in relative safety....

Let's face it, this war is about oil. As far as the west is concerned if it can masquerade as something else then that's great....
 

---

Posted by Symon (# 246) on :
 
Erin, thanks for the reply. You point out that the electoral college is in your consitution as if this makes it democratic, which of course in itself it doesn't. While I appreciate that an argument can be made for the idea that the college is democratic, my main point was that the college did not choose Bush anyway. You didn't answer this point.

In Europe teh refusal by the US to trade with Cuba is referred to as a "blockade". There's obviously a semantic difference here. I'm glad you're against this blockade (or "refusal to trade") as you might prefer to call it. I agree with you that the USA's strongest weapon is free trade: it has been using it for years to oppress and exploit millions of people around the globe.

Why will you not engage in an argument about the USA international support for terrorism? You dismiss my "mindset" as something you cannot argue with. My mindset is that of a working class British person who has seen his own country effectively colonised by the USA. I do not understand why you refuse to engage with this.
 

---

Posted by David Carrington (# 2541) on :
 
Can't we invade Australia and cull all cricket playing males over 18. That should give us a fighting chance in the Ashes!

Mr Pete, Bush did mention N. Korea in his evil axis speech and I think Cheney (sp?) has also spoken of them, Iran and China as being on the US's list of enemies. He was beating a drum against China even before 9/11 leat year.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
The Electoral College DID choose Bush. He wouldn't be president if it hadn't. I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with the US electoral process prior to making uninformed judgments about it. The Supreme Court's decision was about the multitude of recounts in Florida (and God knows we had enough of them), that's it. This is why I won't debate the other stuff with you -- how can I debate someone that I have to educate on every point along the way? That's not a debate, that's a history/economics/government lesson, and I do enough teaching in my paid work to not want to do it here.
 

---

Posted by Bonzo (# 2481) on :
 
Bush may have been elected legitimately according to the US voting system (personally I think this is a very debateable point), but if I had been in his shoes I could not have taken office knowing that the majority of voters did not want me.

My point is that, for a person (and his party) to start his presidency, so obviously more intent on taking power than following any moral scruples, It seems folly to accept at face value his pronouncements about Iraq's activities and intentions. After all I suspect that a successful bashing of Saddam would be a vote winner. It would certainly help to divert attention from his apparently unsuccessful attempts to obliterate Al Quaeda.
 

---

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 
Why invade America - it's already been done. 'The Mouse That Roared' was one of the funniest books I ever read (and even a reasonable film).

For those who never read it, it's about a tiny mid-european nation who are going bankrupt, and looking around at Germany etc., they decide that anyone who gets beaten in a war with America then gets tons of economic aid. So they decide to invade America with a force of 20 long-bowmen, aiming to get soundly thrashed then reap the aid. Things go wrong when they end up accidently capturing a scientist with a super-powerful bomb (and a gorgeous daughter IIRC)...
 

---

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :
 
Flippant point first. The only justification to invade the U.S. is that posited in the Peter Sellers film "The mouse that roared", where a tiny European state worked out that in order to obtain economic benefits from the U.S. the thing to do was declare war, send an invasion (about ten men with bows and arrows) to New York, and then surrender. Unfortunately the plan went wrong (or right) when they happened on a new type of bomb being developed in New York, and all the superpowers came begging to their borders.

Secondly, while Bush received less votes than his opponent, he was elected according to the Constitution, by the electoral college meeting on the appointed day. What the Supreme court decided was who the electors for the State of Florida were to be. In a first past the post system, like in the U.K. it is always possible for the party with fewer votes nationally to win an election, it happened in the UK in 1951 and Feb. 1974. Personally I would like to see first past the post scrapped, but its retention doesn't make us undemocratic, it just means our democracy is flawed. I doubt there is any democracy without some problem or another. The U.S., with its open elections (congress evry 2 years, president every 4 years, restricted to only two terms, is a hell of a lot more democratic than Iraq, China, North Korea, Cuba (who I have some sympathy for where U.S, foreign policy is concerned though) etc.

Thirdly, we are not at war with Iraq...yet. As I have pointed out before, the U.S. administration has hawks and less hawkish people in it, and so far Powell and, I believe Blair, have had a restraining influence. What we have is a threat, and we can legitimately debate the threat!

The thought of Hussein with WoMD is as horrible as the thought of Hitler with them. The man has used chemical weapons against his own people. He has shown what he is capable of.

But his people must support him, I gather he obtained a 99.9% approval rating in the latest referendum on his leadership.

Which just goes to show, doesn't it.
 

---

Posted by MCC (# 3137) on :
 
Sorry for double post, but as I was beaten to the pst by Linzc I can only say

Bugger
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonzo:
Bush may have been elected legitimately according to the US voting system (personally I think this is a very debateable point), but if I had been in his shoes I could not have taken office knowing that the majority of voters did not want me....

---

Why not? Bill Clinton did exactly that, not once but twice. He never achieved anything close to a majority.

And the honest recounts in Florida all showed Bush *gaining* votes, interestingly enough. Ah, mythology...

As for thoughts of invading the US, do bear in mind that our Second Amendment protections have not yet been entirely erased.

Finally, I say this as someone who does not feel that the US should be Policeman to the World, let alone Sugar Daddy to Political Regimes Elsewhere. And I don't particularly want to invade Iraq.



Rossweisse // crazed libertarian
 

---

Posted by marmot (# 479) on :
 
Cripes, not again. Would someone please give this maggoty old carcass a proper cremation?
 

---

Posted by Hull Hound (# 2140) on :
 
Symon, you seem to be aware of William Blum’s ‘Rogue State’, in which he argues that if we judge the US by the standard it uses to baptise others into rogue state status then America defines itself as the rogue state. Is this the book that has prompted this?
 

---

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Hefts thread on toasting fork

I know that some people wish to make Tony, the Dead Horses host, truly welcome and at home in Hell. Very charitable of you.

But, as you've no doubt all guessed, this is one pony that's been flogged to death, and then some.

So, if you wish to post any more on the great Pond War (America vs. Britain - sorry Oz, you don't get a look in), you may follow this thread down to Dead Horses, and hope Tony doesn't close it before you get there.

Viki, hellhost
 

---

Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Symon:
My mindset is that of a working class British person who has seen his own country effectively colonised by the USA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sarkycow:
Hefts thread on toasting fork

I know that some people wish to make Tony, the Dead Horses host, truly welcome and at home in Hell. Very charitable of you.

But, as you've no doubt all guessed, this is one pony that's been flogged to death, and then some.

So, if you wish to post any more on the great Pond War (America vs. Britain - sorry Oz, you don't get a look in), you may follow this thread down to Dead Horses, and hope Tony doesn't close it before you get there.

Viki, hellhost

---

Thanks Viki - I think!!

Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

Will all future posters to this thread note the the Special Rules relating to Hell are not in force here and that the full 10Cs are followed, in both the letter and the spirit.

And if that doesn't kill the thread, nothing will! (Short of me doing it by force, of course!!)

Host Mode <DEACTIVATE>
 

---

Posted by brodavid (# 460) on :
 
NO FAIR!!! A thread gets started that has blatant America-bashing, liberal whining, easily disprovable errors in fact, and Erin getting wound up, all at once, and I'm too busy to get to it until it has been moved to Dead Horses, where I have to be nice!

It's too late, the fun is over.

I curse my broken-down water heater!
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCC:
In a first past the post system, like in the U.K. it is always possible for the party with fewer votes nationally to win an election, it happened in the UK in 1951 and Feb. 1974.

---

That can happen in Canada's system, too. And I thought we were a democracy.
 

---

Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCC:
[QB]In a first past the post system, like in the U.K. it is always possible for the party with fewer votes nationally to win an election, it happened in the UK in 1951 and Feb. 1974.[QB]

---

How?

It's early, my head's not working. I know I'm missing something basic, but I can't work out where.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
Let's say you win a slim majority (say 51%) of the votes in a enough states to get a majority (say 51%) of the electoral votes. The other party wins a massive majority (say 80%) of the votes in the rest of the states.

You could have, say, 51% of 51% plus 20% of 49% of the votes, which is approx. 36% (compared to approx. 64% for the losing party - assuming no independents) of the popular votes, yet you win because you have 51% of the electoral votes.

The idea is that if you win a state with 51% of the popular vote, you get 100% of their electoral votes.

(Correct me if I am wrong, Erin, or someone who understands it better.)
 

---

Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on :
 
Ah, there's the missing bit. Thank you.

mmmmm, humiliation. Hurrah for the anonimity of the internet.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
In most cases, that's true. I think there are some states that go for proportional representation with their electoral votes, but I couldn't tell you which ones.
 

---

Posted by silverfran (# 3549) on :
 
[The thought of Hussein with WoMD is as horrible as the thought of Hitler with them. The man has used chemical weapons against his own people. He has shown what he is capable of.

But his people must support him, I gather he obtained a 99.9% approval rating in the latest referendum on his leadership.

Which just goes to show, doesn't it.[/QB][/QUOTE]

*Pedantic*
Apparently things in the east are not quite so clear cut as all that. Saddam may have used WMD against people living in the terrirory he governs but they were not "his own people" but his traditional enemies, and the threat they were posing to his (admittedly undemocratic and despotic regime) was great. Wether that makes a difference or not in the long run I don't know, but I don;t doubt the US govt would hesitate to do the same.
 

---

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Why not? Bill Clinton did exactly that, not once but twice. He never achieved anything close to a majority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:
[QBI must beg to differ. CLinton DID recieve a majority of votes both times. The Repubicans don't like that fact, but too bad, There it is.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:
So I don't think it'll ever be settled either way. Frankly, Bush IS the President, and he's going to be for at least two more years, and most probably for another seven.

---

quote:

---

Me, I just think he's a t**t.

---

Agreed.

He might have been elected - but we'll never know for sure, given all the problems with votes being counted (and not counted). In my mind, he's president because the Supreme Court said so, not because the populace elected him.

The best thing the Democrats could do at this point is to pick a viable candidate for president and pool all their money behind him. But chances are they'll expend all their energy and money in the primaries and get their butts whipped in the general election.

If we're gonna get invaded, could we take a vote first on who gets to do it? My choice would be Canada.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
You'll just have to wait. Our soldier is on his coffee break right now.
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
This will explain everything.

USA experiencing technical difficulties

You'll need a Flash plug-in for your browser. (You can download one for free from the Net, but I don't know the site.)

Anyway, well worth seeing!
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I can't find it now, but Laura posted a very thorough explanation as to why Bush was, in fact, elected.
 

---

Posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness (# 7) on :
 
I do remember it, and frankly, I do believe Laura, because she utterly knows what she is talking about (and she's got no reason to lie).

But that wasn't what I was saying.

It just struck me as odd that people with similar qualifications should be saying precisely the opposite thing with equal vehemence, as if it's obvious or something. And as I said before, the general opinion of the British media on both the left and right wings is that he wasn't.

Similarly, those American sources you hear from here are generally those which agree with this view - for example, it seems fairly clear from me that people such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are both far, far more respected here than they are in the States.

Is it any wonder you get us ignorant Brits stating that he wasn't elected as if it's an obvious fact that everyone knows?

It's not an excuse. More an explanation.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:
Similarly, those American sources you hear from here are generally those which agree with this view - for example, it seems fairly clear from me that people such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are both far, far more respected here than they are in the States.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
I'm afraid you are wrong. [...] In both elections Clinton received a plurality, but not a majority, of the votes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness:

So I don't think it'll ever be settled either way. Frankly, Bush IS the President, and he's going to be for at least two more years, and most probably for another seven.

---

Another 7?! Take that back, sir!
 

---

Posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness (# 7) on :
 
Ok, 6, actually.

I'm sorry, but it's probably going to happen, isn't it? I know it's an appalling prospect (we're going to have to have his missiles in our country. YAY. ) but I'll eat my keyboard if he isn't reelected.
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Wood,

Bush faces a number of major crises, all of which pose a possibility of grave consequences for the American people, and none of which can be ignored for the next two years.

If a myriad of pieces all fall into place, his re-elction is assured, but it will take very little going badly for things to become quite unglued.

Note the veritable feeding frenzy of Democrats eager, at this point, to run against him. Note too a slip in his approval ratings.

Greta
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
the little dweeblet's approval rating's fallen to 58%.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Fallen to 58% (plus or minus 5% which means it hasn't fallen jack).

I thought that 58% "fall" rather humorous. I found the fact the news saw fit here to analyze and discuss that figure ridiculous. But what else is new....
 

---

Posted by The Milkman of Human Kindness (# 7) on :
 
Approval ratings go up and down.

Bush would have to be really stupid to be able to lose the next election.

No, wait...
 

---

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
He'll be fine as long as he wins the war. Didn't America win the last one? Someone had better tell Saddam.
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
He'll be fine as long as he wins the war. Didn't America win the last one? Someone had better tell Saddam.

---

I'm not sure it would register. He's not thinking in terms of failing or not surviving.

He, openly, wants to be another Saladin, who was an anti-Crusader. He's basically cast himself in a super-hero role.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
we won the last one because we stopped before we finished. i was not a big fan of operation desert storm, however, having started it, it was foolish in the extreme to leave it like we did.

my big fear now is that we'll end up in a nasty, dirty was like vietnam, unable to win, refusing to pull out.
 

---

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
Ah well - crusades generally being bad things, good luck to the man.
 

---

Posted by motojerry (# 4147) on :
 
Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky may have an occasional truth to share but they are certainly not prophets. I enjoy much of what they say, it is entertaining, and provides them with a living.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I think Chomsky has tenure

Maybe he can give the extra to Moore.
 

---

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
I think Chomsky has tenure
Maybe he can give the extra to Moore.

---

I think Moore is rapidly manging to live up to the loony lefty sterotype - he seems to be the left's answer to Rush Limbaugh...
As for Chomsky, he seems to go round in circles too but his circles are rather more intricate and stylish than Moore's. Still I admire Chomsky's ability for analysis even if he does seem to emulate the machine-gun blaming that Pilger has become so adept at...
 

---

Posted by Father Brown (# 4201) on :
 
originally posted by Perfecta

"I think Moore is rapidly manging to live up to the loony lefty sterotype"

Really? I have right-wing friends (honestly) and aquintences who saw "Bowling for Columbine" and thought it thought provoking and intelligent. I was slightly surpirsed that he's in the NRA (if he is) but then again sterotypes and all that. However, I really can't imagine how anyone could think the film extreme Ok - maybe there's a argument for it's being erroneous I suppose - but extreme Surely Not!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can't comment on Chomsky becouse I've never read him. Always just assumed he was a typical neo-marxist and I'm fairly familiar with that position already.
 

---

Posted by perfecta (# 4085) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Brown:

"I think Moore is rapidly manging to live up to the loony lefty sterotype"

Really? I have right-wing friends (honestly) and aquintences who saw "Bowling for Columbine" and thought it thought provoking and intelligent. I was slightly surpirsed that he's in the NRA (if he is) but then again sterotypes and all that.

---

well I was slightly ambivalent about BfC - Moore tends to usually be right but not very good at explaining why... What really annoyed me was his performance on Newsnight from NY - he had no grace or humility in the way say Billy Bragg would have approached it. Another bone of contention I have with him is his economy with the truth (at times). He posted this editorial on his website how Bush was going to get thrashed in the mid-term elections but when it didn't happen he removed it! On the awful truth (an ok program but nowhere near as good as Mark Thomas' Comedy Product), he magnified a graph looking at the US insurance companies profits making it seem as if it was trebling each year (it was going up v. fact but no that fast)... Again, I agree with his sentiment that health services shouldn't be run on a profit basis but did he really need to do that?

But I still enjoy watching his programs though - I suppose the mere fact he infuriates the right-wingers makes him worth supporting - give them some of their own medecine

[on topic tangent]

RE: the original post - couldn't a similar case (i.e. bombing the US) be made for the UK or France for that matter no? The UK system isn't democratic given the first past the post system (same in France as it side-lines the extremes - the National Front often reaped 15% of the vote but only got one seat in the assembly) - and for the rest it's hardly open to debate, is it?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Brown:
Can't comment on Chomsky becouse I've never read him. Always just assumed he was a typical neo-marxist and I'm fairly familiar with that position already.

---

quote:

---

USA is not a democracy. It is a federal republic.etc etc

---

Red Herring winner of the week - nay the month!
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Also meaningless nonsense. For most English-speaking people these days (even in the USA) "republic" just means any system of government without a king, and "democracy" any system in which the people elect the government.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Also meaningless nonsense. For most English-speaking people these days (even in the USA) "republic" just means any system of government without a king, and "democracy" any system in which the people elect the government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
If you profess to be a Christian, yes, you most certainly should.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by netgeek:

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
If you profess to be a Christian, yes, you most certainly should.

---

Doesn't the bible advise you to not cast your pearls before swine? Didn't Peter cause the death of two tithers who lied about how much they were giving?Aren't we told that if someone will not accept us we are to leave their presence and wipe the dust off our shoes? Being christian does not mean being an idiot.

---

(While the U.S. and UK aren't what I would call "Christian nations," I'll address your statements from a response from a Christian.)

In the world's eyes, Christians *are* idiots. Morons. Goobs, twits, feebs, rubes and social hayseeds. We're deluded, hopelessly out of date and out of fashion, reactionary, requiring a God crutch because we can't face reality, mentally and emotionally unstable, judgmental, cruel, hypocritical, greedy, in denial, neurotic, responsible for the worst atrocities committed in our poor history; in fact, we're barely a step away from full commital in the Giggle Factory, and that step is under debate even so.

The bad news? We already are idiots. So why change now?

We --at our best-- accept people unconditionally, we don't make them sign contracts and post performance bonds before we decide to love them. We don't keep track of wrongs done to us. We don't lie to people, we don't cheat them or steal from them, we don't sleep with one anyone else's spouses, we don't gossip or backbite or withhold material goods from those in need. We don't murder and we confess our sins, we hope for the best at all times and we tell the truth, we're brave despite our fears, we encourage each other in our walks with God, counting each other as more important than ourselves. We're honest in all things. We lay down our lives for each other every day in little acts of service and kindess, and in big acts of heroism. At our best, for those few moments or days or whatnot, this is how the world should see us.

We believe in a God no one can see, touch, taste, smell or hear. We claim He's all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benevolent, yet somehow evil still exists in our world. We claim He sent His son to die for us, taking the price of our sins upon Himself, a claim that has some historical proof, but nothing tangible. We believe God loves us all, even (or especially) you know, them, over there. The ones who don't measure up to all our standards for what "the right people" should look like, should work like, should live like, should drive or wear or eat or drink or screw. Yeah, those people; the ones that look like us....

We believe in forgiving our enemies, not just once or twice, but according to the words of the man whom we believe to be the Son of God, an identity never to be duplicated then or since, "...seventy times seven."

Over and over and over in the NT, God makes it abundantly clear Christians are not to conform themselves to the value system of this fallen world. (I'll spare the verse quoting, we've all heard them a million times.)

In a nutshell, we are to die to ourselves, and the consequence of that is we will live eternally.

We are to love our enemies, do good to them that hate us. There is no equivocation here in His words, no gray areas, no wiggle room whatsoever.

Where we fall into debate is, what constitutes "doing good"? What is "loving our enemies"?

If a beggar on the freeway offramp holds up a "homeless, hungry, please help" sign, am I loving him by giving him cash or perhaps a bag of food? If I drive him to the downtown mission or to the community hospital for detox, is that loving him less or more than giving him the cash?

Take a man whose wife is an alcoholic who denies her addiction and refuses treatment. What is his most loving course of behavior toward her when she comes home drunk, vomits on the living room floor, and passes out face down in the mess? Continue with her as she is and clean up after her and keep urging treatment on her? Or leave her there, pick up and move out until she gets clean and sober? Or just divorce her and be done with her?

Take Iraq for example, some people see continuing to press for UN sanctions and inspections as loving the Iraqi people by not inflicting war upon them. Other people see a miltary strike to remove Hussein from power as loving the Iraqi people as well as ourselves enough to rid us all of a genocidal tyrant. People of good conscience and sound mind, believers all, have opposing views on this issue, and both can quote Scripture to justify it.

So while there's no wiggle room in whatJesus said, there's quite a large room for maneuver in how to best implement what He said.

So, being a Christian means exactly being an idiot. It means holding beliefs and committing actions that the mainstream of every society will deem ludicrous or offensive. Being a Christian means feeding someone who hates you. Being a Christian means praying for the well-being of someone who hates you. Being a Christian means loving that hateful person in spite of their hate, and not returning that hate to them.

Love doesn't mean being a doormat or a yes-man. Sometimes love must make very difficult decisions, endure terrible consequences, pay high prices. Sometimes, love must ask someone else to pay a price as well. Love always, always looks out for the best interests of its subject. Love loves enough to say "no" when appropriate.

I'm 41, I've been a Christian since 1977, and I'm still learning about love, and frankly, I suck at it. If love were a profession, I'd be fired in a minute and I'd never be able to get a job in it. I've said very unloving things on this board and felt quite wonderfully self-righteous while I did so. I imagine we all share that condition, so we all know what it's like.

Rather a long-winded response, as most of mine seem to be, but I hope one you read. I remember once complaining to my magic teacher about the difficulty of a routine, how much it demanded of my hand, and he said, "If it were easy, everyone would be doing it." So too, for the Christian life.
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Kenwritez - an excellent post

It's almost a shame it's down here in DH and will not get the wider exposure it so clearly deserves.

Thank you
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Ken - you are hereby allowed to keep using my name for at least another year


 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Ken, let me bring it to an even half-dozen:
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
Wow! Kenwritez! I always knew you were clever, but now I know!
 

---

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Kenwritez,
(but Lord keep him humble in the face of all this praise )
 

---

Posted by Ben26 (# 4201) on :
 
Kenwritez - You have done one of the best jobs I've ever seen at descibing what a Christian should be aiming at. Being an idiot

I suspect if all Christians were more like you descibe there would be more of them. but, we are sinners after all.


 

---

Posted by Sauerkraut (# 3112) on :
 
Ken,

Let me make this an even dozen.

Saeurkraut
 

---

Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
Ummmmm....



Thank you for the appreciation. DEFINITELY makes my day. Heck, makes my week! Y'all rock.

to y'all.
 

---

Posted by Ben26 (# 4201) on :
 
I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say - your welcome Ken

Ben26
 

---

Posted by The Light (# 4244) on :
 
Everyone just chill out. It does not matter a jot who or what you believe. In fact you'd all probably have much better lives if you stopped trying to believe in anything that someone else has told you to believe.

You think you form your beliefs all by yourself don't you? Think again.

Namaste


 

---

Posted by Royal Peculiar (# 3159) on :
 
Dear Namaste,

With the utmost respect, i it doesn't matter one jot what we believe, why are you wasting your time on a board where this subject of our beliefs is discussed intensely, intellegently and knowledgebly ( although not always in my case)? You are of course more than welcome, but you contradict that statement by taking the trouble to come on the boards and make it.

If you are saying that we unquestionably swallow what we are told and are too stupid to realise this is what we are doing, I would beg to differ.
We agonise over what we are told anfd in what sense it may or may not be true, and learn from one another in the process. People who simply want to say "this is my view and I 'm here to convince you all that it is the only correct opinion" are not terribly well received.

May I invite you to expand your post just a little so that I am not in danger of misunderstanding you?
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
My goodness (or lack of it!), to have on one page what kenwritez wrote , surely one of the best things EVER written, on any board, on the Ship, and then to have the inane 'it doesn't matter one jot what you believe' a few posts later from the inaptly named 'The Light'... Words fail me.
(They most certainly do not fail kenwritez. )
 

---

Posted by Ben26 (# 4201) on :
 
The Light - I bet you think you formed that belief all by yourself don't you? Think again. We are all products of what we read, experience, hear, as well as our upbringing. As it says in Ecclesiastes 1;9b "there is nothing new under the sun" (NIV).

Even if that verse is a slight exageration (if), what you said is hardly original so don't insult us for believing what we regard as realistic. It's not terribly respectful is it? Oh, and btw, many shipmates seem to me (although I admit to being a total newbie) to be extremely wel read and well thought out in thier views.

Kenwritez - Still reckon that what you wrote is about the sanest, clearest and most worthwhile explanation of the Christian ideal I have ever heard. That comes from a Theology Student.
 

---

Posted by James M (# 3414) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyK:
Kenwritez - an excellent post

It's almost a shame it's down here in DH and will not get the wider exposure it so clearly deserves.

Thank you

---

Kenwritez
Thanks very much for your post Kenwritez.

I think it would make an excellent basis for a Ship main article, or even a Rant...
 

---

Posted by Thumbprint (# 3056) on :
 
Kenwritez, your post was amazing. Thank you
 

---

Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Light:
Everyone just chill out. It does not matter a jot who or what you believe. In fact you'd all probably have much better lives if you stopped trying to believe in anything that someone else has told you to believe.

You think you form your beliefs all by yourself don't you? Think again.

Namaste

---

Hi Light;

If what you say is true, then by your own logic it doesn't matter if we believe you. Taking your own statement, we'd have a better life if we didn't believe what you've said. The logic in your post is the equivalent of saying, "I've told you a million times, I never exaggerate."

Belief is crucial. Who are we and how do we know who we are? What anyone believes is who they are: "Belief makes the man." Beliefs are formed by input from others (via education, media, personal interaction), so your post is self-contradictory because it's a belief that you came to as a result of input from others. (Yes, you process the input, but you still must have the initial input in order to process it.)

If this is the case, then what we believe is of vast importance. If I believe God does not exist, in no right or wrong, merely in my "right" to do whatever I want when I want to do it, then my life will relect that belief and I'll be toxic to my world.

If I believe there is a God but He's perpetually angry at me, sees me as worthless scum, then my life will reflect that, and I'll either scurry about trying desperately to earn His approval or I'll shoot Him the middle finger and tell Him to go shag Himself.

While these are extremes, they do illustrate my point: We are what we believe. We are who we believe we are.

Every single aspect of our human identity (as opposed to spiritual identity, a topic for another thread) is founded upon our belief in something or someone, even ourself. We are who we believe we are. (As an illustration, Prov. 23:7; "For as he thinks in his heart, so is he....")

As children, we don't know who we are until we're told by others, told by parents, family, friends, strangers, society at large. "You're my son, I love you," or, "You're now a dog owner, so you'll have to feed him and pick up the dog crap in the back yard," or, "You're a useless git, sod off."

For example: We're colored by our relationship with our parents or whomever acts as our authority figures. We look to them for our own definition, to answer our question, "Who am I?"

If we're told by them we're stupid, bad, worthless, untalented, etc., then we will believe that about ourselves until we have compelling reason to change that belief. That reason will come in the form of someone else telling us contradictory information: We *are* loved, we *are* capable in some area, we *do* have opinions worth the airing. We will receive this contradictory information (as opposed to discounting it), and assimilate it, only when we believe we have the right and the duty to do so.

As we grow, we go about assembling our identities piece by piece, like a woman sewing a quilt, picking that red section over there, that yellow bit here, those nice black trims there. At some point, it dawns upon us we now have a working self identity, "This is who I am." This identity forms the basis for our interaction with everyone else.

Sometimes enough crap piles up in our lives that we take a second look at who we are, and realize we've been operating under a wrong assumption. IOTW, there are times we must discard some pieces of that self identity quilt; they're no longer accurate or never were. This is what growing up is all about.

Ideally, it's a never-ending process and IMHO completion is reached only when we're standing in front of God after our physical death.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Adding a to kenwritez.

Kenwritez is cool!
 

---

Posted by Thinker (# 4328) on :
 
This thread started as let's attack America and I'd like to get back to that concept now that they have been "successful" in Iraq.

They have allowed the destruction of thousands of years old artifcats and nearly all the hospitals by refusing to have a plan of what to do once they had killed enough Iraqi soldiers to drive into the streets of Baghdad, uninvited and certainly unwelcome.

When they got there they put an American flag over the face of the Saddam statue and proceeded to wreck it with a tank. It was for the people of Iraq to do that, not them.

America's foreign policy would be an embarrasment to Europeans who are more politically/geographically/culturally aware. They can't sort out the Middle East becayuse they won't tell Israel to get back to its '47 boundaries and to leave Palestine to set up its own autonomous state. Jerusalem should be made an international city policed by the UN. America wouldn't dare do this because the Kews run America and have done for the last century and all Presidents are frightened of them.

I don't want to attack America itself, but I do want to attack this creeping Americaisation which is taking over the world and infecting our individual cultures with bad table manners, a TV society, shoppping addiction, obeisity, ignorance, etc.. They arrogantly believe that America is best, well it isn't. It has no culture, no history and a very uneducated ignorant populace who gorges itself with fast food, Coke and McDonalds. They naively think we all want this. Well we don't!

Why will they never understand that nobody anywhere else in the world wants their country to be like America or run by America, however poor that makes them, people still watn to keep their cultures whih are dusregarded by all Americans - just look at the way they arrogantly expect everyone in Europe to speak American (I won't say English as that would be insulting to English).

Let's face it the human rights abuses in America are worse than in many third world countries. You only have to look at the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay without trial or being charged for evidence of that.

So I say let's not attack America, but throughout Europe, let's attack Americanisation as its shallow and empty of any value. Speak to them in your own language and make them try to learn some.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
War crimes, human rights violations, and cultural imperialism? All in a day's work, Sweetheart.

But bad table manners?!

<Presleyterian removes white kid gloves and slaps them across Thinker's cheek>

Sir or Madam, I challenge you to a duel.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Now Spouter, pardon me, I mean "Thinker", perhaps you shouldn't have accepted those Hershey bars our soldiers handed out during the Second European, oops, I mean the Second World War. Didn't you realize they were the thin edge of our cultural domination wedge?

Gosh, for that matter maybe you shouldn't have accepted fifty years of us paying for your protection. European history isn't my best subject, ignorant American that I am, so perhaps you could tell me when that poor, bellicose continent last had fifty years with no wars?

Now, in parting, let me say that unless you've got a dozen and a half of your great-grandmother's Stief ice-cream forks in your sideboard, along with two dozen damask banquet napkins, now listen carefully, sweatheart: shut the fuck up about our table manners.

slap it again, Presley.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Just because I am heavily involved in the Ark, don't think you can get away with such slack-jawed stupidity for any length of time, "Thinker". Here's a clue for you: one more post like this out of you, and thou shalt have thy ignorant and xenophobic butt flamed to a crisp in Hell.

So, I gotta ask: WTF is a Kew? Is that a contraction of Kike and Jew?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the clueless newbie:
It has no culture, no history and a very uneducated ignorant populace who gorges itself with fast food, Coke and McDonalds. They naively think we all want this. Well we don't!

---

And yet, you buy it. Are you in the habit of spending hard-earned cash on things you don't want?

[ 24. April 2003, 18:39: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
<Host Mode: ACTIVATE>
Thinker - others have beaten me to it.

But I'm going to act the host anyway - you say you 'do not want to attack America itself', but that is what you are doing, albeit with a side-ways attack.

It might just have been acceptable in Hell (where I think this thread originated) but it is definitely not acceptable here in Dead Horses, and would probably incur the wrath of a host on any other board.

As you are relatively new, please accept this as a firm warning from me. An apology would be a wise move at this stage,

Erin has made her views quite clear and she carries MUCH more clout around here than I do.

If I may give you some advice (verb. sap.) it is unwise to push your luck with her - her avatar is no accident

<Host Mode:DEACTIVATE>
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Re table manners:

Well, *this* American, when in Europe many years ago, took up the local fashion of eating most things (hamburgers, bananas, pizza) with a knife and fork, keeping fork in one hand and knife in the other, etc.

In case you haven't noticed, manners vary considerably the world over.

Re languages:

Believe it or not, people do study foreign languages here. I've studied several.

But we don't have quite the *need* for them that Europeans do. Our country is huge, with one official language. Europeans really need to know several languages, because there are so many countries right next to each other.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I am surprised you didn't know what a Kew is Erin. It is a religious cult made up of members of the Trilateral Commission. They have set up Tamples all over the U.S. At these Tamples they indoctrinate the select few into the arts of running the country while making it look like it is run by a bunch of people up in D.C.

I would tell you more, but I just joined the local Tample. They tell me that they will have to kill me if I give away too many secrets.
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Tortuf, Mulder and Scully will pay you a visit. After midnight. Password: "the truth is out there".
 

---

Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
Thinker, the next time you post on America (or "Americaisation" as you persist in calling it) you may want to avoid exposing your vast ignorance of things American by following these simple steps:

1) Please grasp basic English syntax. It's "Americanization." (Or "Americanisation for you UK folk.)
2) Get your damn facts correct. You make barely a single factually-correct assertion, a sad fact embarrassing to you but to no one else.
3) Drop the xenophobia at the front door. I (and, I presume, most every other Shipmate, American or not) had all desired out of you and those carrying that same disease.

Your post makes you look like an idiot. Not merely an idiot--any fool can achieve that--but you've colored yourself paranoid, ignorant, slobberingly stupid, and anti-Semitic as well. Perhaps you are not those things, and I hope you are not, but your post very, very clearly paints you as such in nice, bright neon colors.

To Thinker and everyone else who gets their panties in a twist over the sight of the Golden Arches™ rising over their beloved home town: Don't eat there. If your neighbor wants to chow down on the corporate death burger, that's his lookout.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
They have allowed the destruction of thousands of years old artifcats and nearly all the hospitals by refusing to have a plan of what to do once they had killed enough Iraqi soldiers to drive into the streets of Baghdad, uninvited and certainly unwelcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
When they got there they put an American flag over the face of the Saddam statue and proceeded to wreck it with a tank. It was for the people of Iraq to do that, not them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
America's foreign policy would be an embarrasment to Europeans who are more politically/geographically/culturally aware.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
They can't sort out the Middle East becayuse they won't tell Israel to get back to its '47 boundaries and to leave Palestine to set up its own autonomous state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
Jerusalem should be made an international city policed by the UN.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
America wouldn't dare do this because the Kews run America and have done for the last century and all Presidents are frightened of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
I don't want to attack America itself, but I do want to attack this creeping Americaisation which is taking over the world and infecting our individual cultures with bad table manners, a TV society, shoppping addiction, obeisity, ignorance, etc..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
They arrogantly believe that America is best, well it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
It has no culture, no history and a very uneducated ignorant populace who gorges itself with fast food, Coke and McDonalds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
They naively think we all want this. Well we don't!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
Why will they never understand that nobody anywhere else in the world wants their country to be like America or run by America, however poor that makes them, people still watn to keep their cultures whih are dusregarded by all Americans - just look at the way they arrogantly expect everyone in Europe to speak American (I won't say English as that would be insulting to English).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
Let's face it the human rights abuses in America are worse than in many third world countries. You only have to look at the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay without trial or being charged for evidence of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
So I say let's not attack America,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
Speak to them in your own language and make them try to learn some.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thinker:
but throughout Europe, let's attack Americanisation as its shallow and empty of any value.

---

You mean as shallow and empty of value as your entire post and whatever thought processes that fueled it? You mean as empty-headed, snide and totally free of anything resembling logic or compassion or maturity as your post was? Or do you mean as utterly unthinking, racist, mean-spirited and arrogant as your post? Perhaps you mean simply as sun-bright blindingly stupid as your post? Or do you perchance mean as totally void of any hint of recognizance for the value of an entire nation of people and their rather obvious achievements as your post was? Or am I completely missing your xenophobic little boat and failing to realize the inherent value in blindly dismissing over 270 million people and over 200 years of history?
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Sock it to him, Kenwritez!

And BTW Thinker, I am still waiting for that apology - I may have politely phrased it as a request, but it is still required!
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Kenwritez, I am an arrogant, elitest Brit, full of stereotypes of what other nationalities are like. Even so, your last post was masterly .
 

---

Posted by Sauerkraut (# 3112) on :
 
Kenwritez,

Once again you make an amazing post defending the overweight, McDonald's loving American. I must say:



Sauerkraut
 

---

Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
I don't think Americans are inherently any worse or any better than, say, Brits. I think British and US cultures have their sins and virtues, strengths and weaknesses as much as any other. The Americans just get more publicity, that's all.

I don't mind people saying, "I disagree with McDonald's international business policies" or "I think President Bush is an idiot," but don't slag off an entire nation!
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Oh namesake Mine,

great post.

But when picking up addle-brained racist arsewipes on factual accuracy it is best to be accurate:

quote:

---

Everyone agrees the British occupation of their neighbors Scotland and Ireland was mere humanitarian peacekeeping,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Oh namesake Mine,

great post.

But when picking up addle-brained racist arsewipes on factual accuracy it is best to be accurate:

quote:

---

Everyone agrees the British occupation of their neighbors Scotland and Ireland was mere humanitarian peacekeeping,

---

Scotland, like Wales and Cornwall and England, is part of Britain. So it can't be a neighbour of the British. I think you meant "English occupation" (which there wasn't, arguably - the currently most popular Scottish myth about the unfortunate events of the early 18th century is along the lines of the Scottish establishment betraying the people into a sordid commercialism and imperialism - Scots soldiers got to occupy plenty of places alongside the English (& still do, disproportionatly) but Louise could no doubt tell you much more about that than the rest of us could)

And, by the way, who bought all those slaves us and the Portuguese used to sell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenwritez:

I already speak Spanish and some Italian, so I think I've fulfilled these terms. Most Americans can speak at least a smattering of other languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenwritez:
Now, what about all this Robert the Bruce stuff? My pop culture and "Braveheart"-inspired understanding of English history crammed sideways into my tinytiny brain tells me the English king(s) sent troops into Scotland and Ireland to pacify the natives and ensure the productivity of both the absentee noble landlords as well as those noble landowners present.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Royal Peculiar:
How widely spoken is Spanish in the US?. I've heard vague reports about road signs in California being in Spanish and English and that Governor Bush (as he then was) learnt Spanish in order to communicate with many Texans for whom it was thre first language. The White House website is also available in Spanish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenwritez:
Now, what about all this Robert the Bruce stuff? My pop culture and "Braveheart"-inspired understanding of English history crammed sideways into my tinytiny brain tells me the English king(s) sent troops into Scotland and Ireland to pacify the natives and ensure the productivity of both the absentee noble landlords as well as those noble landowners present.

---

Maybe... or it could be that the Frenchified Normans who ran England fell out with the Frenchified Normans who ran Scotland & the Scots lot took refuge in nationalistic rhetoric to get some support from the common people. A bit like the way Saddam Hussein seemed discover that he had been a Muslim all along sometime in late 1990.

Robert the Bruce, or should I say...

[Monty Phythonesque stage French accent ON]
Robert de Brus
[Monty Phythonesque stage French accent OFF]

had as many lands in England as in Scotland - Bruce Castle in Tottenham, north London, was his - and his mother tongue may well have been French - though, to be fair, his mother had the Gaelic.

Wallace was a real enough Scot. He didn't use blue & white face paint though - that fashion dates back all the way to the late 1980s.

It would be nice to know exactly what did happen to John Comyn as well. The Pope thought badly enough of it to excommunicate Bruce...

---

Do you mean Raibeart Brus? His family had been in Scotland over a hundred years and married into the line of the ancient Lordship of Galloway. It's also not true that they had more lands in England than in Scotland. They had some possessions there but their heartland was in Annandale and Gaelic-speaking Carrick (with some interests in Ireland). Though he undoubtedly spoke Norman French, he was more Gaelic than Gallic.

He was excommunicated twice. Once for murdering John Comyn at the High altar of the Church of the Greyfriars in Dumfries ( It was a misunderstanding! It could happen to anyone - OK?), the second time for opposing the Pope's nominees to the Scottish Bishoprics (the famous declaration of Arbroath is about the latter excommunication).

Anyway - lay off him! None of this 'Bruce was a Frenchy and only Wallace was Scottish' nonsense both were Scots, and King Edward of England was an international war criminal who murdered the good citizens of Berwick

L.
 

---

Posted by DISCO-duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Where i live, Spanish is widely spoken. In fact some people live all there lives speaking Spanish never learning English (mostly older women).

I lived in Florida and learned some Spanish and then moved to California later. My Spanish really really sux rocks, but I still communicate with the cleaning lady at work since i know common phrases.

Most stuff here is in English & Spanish as are many streets. Alameda de Las pulgas is the street my synagogue is on (church...but we rent a synagogue on Sundays to meet in). It means Tree-Lined Avenue of the fleas...cute, huh?
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 
Many different languages in my area. Multiple forms of Chinese; Vietnamese, Japanese, Cambodian, Hmong (not sure of the name of their language), Thai, Russian, Spanish, Filipino, Arabic...

If someone prints multi-lingual info here, it's usually some combination of English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Russian.
 

---

Posted by DISCO-duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Golden Key has a good point about the Bay Area. Shoot, some years ago we had tons of Serbs and Croations too.

Right now, there is a Marachi band playing outside my window at work. I enjoy a good fiesta as well as anybody but today I am not in the mood for this music since I can not hear Boston on my radio. Dangnabit.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0