Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 201
  1. #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The ironic thing about this is that the character of Rambo was not a 'Gung Ho' 'kill 'em all' type.
    I was thinking the same thing...kinda funny he used that example.
  2. #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Hey Mike, you seem to know a lot about the military. It makes me wonder what was your personal experience with it and if you had any what was your MOS?
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    What was your MOS?
    mikec, Still dodging the question? How about just your Name, Rank, and S/N since you seem to believe some of your fellow Americans are your enemy?
  3. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    I call that opinion. I think you confuse it with tolerance.
    Not really. It is my opinion that your opinion is one based on intolerance.
  4. #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    mikec, Still dodging the question? How about just your Name, Rank, and S/N since you seem to believe some of your fellow Americans are your enemy?
    I know you're kidding but I don't expect him to publish that information. I simply asked his MOS as that is probably harmless enough information to post without compromising his identity. Some of us post under nicknames to avoid being the next victim of a guy like that Chuppa weirdo.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 09/27/2007 at 12:11 PM.
  5. #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I know you're kidding but I don't expect him to publish that information. I simply asked his MOS as that is probably harmless enough information to post without compromising his identity. Some of us post under nicknames to avoid being the next victim of a guy like that Chuppa weirdo.
    You're right. I was kidding ... about the 2nd part of that post.

    His MOS, his branch, his last paygrade are so broad that I don't think there's any opportunity for anyone doing anything stupid. If he had as much respect for the military as he claims, he wouldn't be regurgitating generic talking points, would he?

    BTW, Moderateinny, I really liked the analogy within your example of the child. Very appropriate. I don't think the resident conservative thinktank followed it terribly well though which further underlines this thread's topic.
  6. #186  
    HOST: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

    CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

    HOST: The phony soldiers.

    CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.
    Another proud moment for right-wing chickenhawks. The above exchange was from one of the right's high priest but I've removed his name from this so that you can plug in other names like "mikec" or "o'reilly" or "limbaugh".

    mikec - please tell me if I substitutued the name of this guy with yours how its any different from some of the things you've said in this thread?

    PS - this is a real exchange that happend on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Rush is truly the ultimate fat f$$king chickenhawk POS hypocrite who just days earlier was foaming at the mouth about the moveon.org ad. Priceless. Simply priceless.
  7. #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Another proud moment for right-wing chickenhawks. The above exchange was from one of the right's high priest but I've removed his name from this so that you can plug in other names like "mikec" or "o'reilly" or "limbaugh".

    mikec - please tell me if I substitutued the name of this guy with yours how its any different from some of the things you've said in this thread?

    PS - this is a real exchange that happend on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Rush is truly the ultimate fat f$$king chickenhawk POS hypocrite who just days earlier was foaming at the mouth about the moveon.org ad. Priceless. Simply priceless.
    Priceless indeed (as the truth generally is)! Same can be said for fake, shrouded conservatives who argue for argument's sake.
  8. #188  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    mikec, Still dodging the question? How about just your Name, Rank, and S/N since you seem to believe some of your fellow Americans are your enemy?
    Um, not dodging anything. I did not answer becuase the question seems disingenuous, just like this one.

    If you want ot provide a reason for that information, I will respond.
  9. #189  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Not really. It is my opinion that your opinion is one based on intolerance.
    And that, my friend, is, (as they said in Time Bandits), why you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence.
  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Another proud moment for right-wing chickenhawks. The above exchange was from one of the right's high priest but I've removed his name from this so that you can plug in other names like "mikec" or "o'reilly" or "limbaugh".

    mikec - please tell me if I substitutued the name of this guy with yours how its any different from some of the things you've said in this thread?

    PS - this is a real exchange that happend on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Rush is truly the ultimate fat f$$king chickenhawk POS hypocrite who just days earlier was foaming at the mouth about the moveon.org ad. Priceless. Simply priceless.
    Not sure why you want to smear me. Rush is a hard drug addict harpy. I don't put much stock in what he says. While he has good points sometimes, me thinks he goes over the bend.

    "Phony soliders?" Is that like "almost pregnant"?
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    Um, not dodging anything. I did not answer becuase the question seems disingenuous, just like this one.

    If you want ot provide a reason for that information, I will respond.
    Talk is cheap, especially from those chest-thumping about their proud heritage of American militarism. Proud that in the time it takes you to post your duck and dodge, another American who is wearing a US uniform just died in Iraq unnecessarily?

    Maybe this is just another strange shade of grey that conservatives are blind to?

    Lifes2Short for your bull.
  12. #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    And that, my friend, is, (as they said in Time Bandits), why you are so mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence.
    Duh.
  13. #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    Not sure why you want to smear me. Rush is a hard drug addict harpy. I don't put much stock in what he says. While he has good points sometimes, me thinks he goes over the bend.

    "Phony soliders?" Is that like "almost pregnant"?
    I'm not trying to smear you - I'm asking if you re-examine your statements and compare/contrast them with Rushs'.

    I agree with you that calling a soldier "phony" is sort of like being "almost pregnant". Except the "almost pregant" lady probably isn't being shouted down by other women questioning her fertility publicly.
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #194  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I see -- like those big government, oppressive, impoverished nations: Norway, Sweden, and Japan ...
    Funny how you've conveniently left out France.

    Not sure why you put Japan on that list. However you are most welcome, by the way, to emigrate to the Scandinavian welfare states of Norway and Sweden. I suspect you will not quibble when that piece of your hard earned pie ends up on someone else's plate because they are deemed more deserving than you are.
  15. #195  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Funny how you've conveniently left out France.
    France was right which the past 4 1/2 years of history have proven without doubt.
  16. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    France was right which the past 4 1/2 years of history have proven without doubt.
    4 1/2 years? Well, umm, I am not sure what you are referring to here, however what I was referring to was this little exchange at the beginning of the thread:

    Originally Posted by mikec
    Well, for one, more information and education leads to more freedom...more freedom leads to prosperity.

    And the bigger the govt (relative to population and geograhy, the worse it is for the nation.

    Common language fosters success. and overtaxation is a leading cause of revolt.

    If you want to talk about a specific period of time/events, please submit one and we can discuss.


    BARYE: I see -- like those big government, oppressive, impoverished nations: Norway, Sweden, and Japan ...
    Of course, in support of mikec's observation, I brought up the welfare-state of France with this in mind:

    Map of 2005 riots.

    Timeline of 2005 riots:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413964.stm
  17. #197  
    ah France -- I can no longer be held responsible for what goes on there...

    Why though are you're attempting to connect the moslem riots with anything that I wrote ??

    My observation was quite simple: Norway, Sweden, and Japan are prosperous, culturally advanced societies, with comprehensive social support systems -- systems that the population enthusiastically supports, and which are paid for through taxes that are both high and quite progressive.

    Its a system that interestingly, has the indirect effect of lessening the disparity between those with the least versus those with the most.

    The citizens of those countries are much more likely to voice trust in their govt's and satisfaction with their lives. Citizens in those countries have much higher literacy rates, are much healthier, live longer, have lower birth rates, lower unemployment rates, and lower rates of crime.

    (btw, though Japan's social system is not as comprehensive as Norway or Sweden's -- Japan is absolutely a big govt. nation. Their ultra powerful beaucracy is involved in everything).

    The French moslem problem was the direct product of their colonial delusion.

    They not only wanted to exploit their african (asian and caribiean) conquests, they wanted to pretend that they were adopting their people as well.

    So even after the formal their colonial chains were severed, the french continued to allow former colonial subjects nearly unhindered immigration.

    Ironically, it was the second born generation, born in my homeland, who rebelled against a life that their parents brought them to...
    Last edited by BARYE; 09/30/2007 at 04:01 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  18. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    ah France -- I can no longer be held responsible for what goes on there...

    Why though are you're attempting to connect the moslem riots with anything that I wrote ??
    It was actually more in support of what mikec said.

    My observation was quite simple: Norway, Sweden, and Japan are prosperous, culturally advanced societies, with comprehensive social support systems -- systems that the population enthusiastically supports, and which are paid for through taxes that are both high and quite progressive.
    Well, Japan is not a welfare state whereas Norway and Sweden are. And while Norway and Sweden are very much 1st-world countries, I think a sound case can be made that neither Norway or Sweden enjoy dynamic economies (no doubt, brought on by the specter of the tax man).

    Compare and contrast this with Japan which does, indeed, have a great economy.

    Its a system that interestingly, has the indirect effect of lessening the disparity between those with the least versus those with the most.
    The effect is not indirect, it is actually quite by design.

    The citizens of those countries are much more likely to voice trust in their govt's and satisfaction with their lives.
    Of course. If you are not well-to-do, but are otherwise being artificially propped up by the national government, I suspect that you will get glowing reviews from those who receive the entitlements.

    Why do you think the Democratic party is called "the party of entitlements"?

    Citizens in those countries have much high literacy rates, are much healthier, live longer, have lower birth rates, lower unemployment rates, and lower rates of crime.
    They (Norway and Sweden) also have an inferior economy, a stagnant system of higher education with not serious research effort to speak of, serious cultural problems related to integration, and a relatively low per capita income.

    I suppose that we all have to pick our poison though, but just because you do not see a homeless person on the street does not mean there are other, and perhaps more insidious, problems afoot.

    The French moslem problem was the direct product of their colonial delusion.
    The muslim problem in Europe is very much not endemic to France. Post-war Europe, unfortunately and much to her detriment, has accumilated a poor record of integration and assimilation (much poorer than, say, the United States). The riots in France are part of a much bigger problem that the EU will, eventually, have to come to grips with - that is, the muslimifcation of Europe.

    They not only wanted to exploit their african (asian and caribiean) conquests, they wanted to pretend that they were adopting their people as well.
    But is this unique to the French colonial experience? I feel it goes much deeper than that.

    It is worth remembering both the Spanish and the British both had their empires which were much larger than what France held overseas.

    The Spanish were interested in spreading their Christian faith and bringing home the gold while integrating everyone under the crown - with good and bad effects. The British Empire, the largest one in history, were more obvious in their intentions, but they did impart some good in terms of propagating their systems of education and trade.

    Both Spain and Britain managed their imperial-related immigration quite adeptly. In Spain you will find many South Americans living there. In Britain, there are many subjects of the commonwealth who live there as well.

    France is another ball of wax. The Algerian ex-pat in Paris does not feel particularly French, whereas the Chilean in Madrid or the Aussie in Manchester would feel right at home in their respective adopted homes.

    In short, the best "managers" of their respective empires are the British, followed by the Spanish, and way down the list would be France.

    Now why does France have this hostile relationship with her former subjects is, I suppose, a question that can be debated and written about ad nauseum. However, France's problem is now quickly becoming Europe's problem.
  19. #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Well, Japan is not a welfare state whereas Norway and Sweden are. And while Norway and Sweden are very much 1st-world countries, I think a sound case can be made that neither Norway or Sweden enjoy dynamic economies (no doubt, brought on by the specter of the tax man).
    Then please make the case.

    Of course. If you are not well-to-do, but are otherwise being artificially propped up by the national government, I suspect that you will get glowing reviews from those who receive the entitlements.
    I actually do quite a lot of business in both countries (Norway and Sweden) - in fact I'll be in Lund and Oslo again very soon - and I know fairly well compensated professionals that are not "propped up by their government" at all and frankly they'd be offended by your comments.

    Why do you think the Democratic party is called "the party of entitlements"?
    Because they have been defined by the GOP as such. And hopefully the GOP will be rightfully called the "party of corporate entitlements" this upcoming election.

    They (Norway and Sweden) also have an inferior economy, a stagnant system of higher education with not serious research effort to speak of, serious cultural problems related to integration, and a relatively low per capita income.

    I suppose that we all have to pick our poison though, but just because you do not see a homeless person on the street does not mean there are other, and perhaps more insidious, problems afoot.
    Have you ever been to Norway or Sweden? And what is the point of this comparison again? Frankly I've lost the entire context of it (not your fault necessarily).
    Last edited by moderateinny; 09/30/2007 at 10:22 AM.
  20. #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    ...
    They (Norway and Sweden) also have an inferior economy, a stagnant system of higher education with not serious research effort to speak of, serious cultural problems related to integration, and a relatively low per capita income.

    I suppose that we all have to pick our poison though, but just because you do not see a homeless person on the street does not mean there are other, and perhaps more insidious, problems afoot.
    Sweden and Norway are 2 of the most prosperous nations in the world. They are also nation's with probably the lowest disparity between rich and poor. Their people are as I said earlier, extremely happy and proud of that. And given that Sweden lacks almost any natural resource except for snow and fiords, its success is quite a challenge for raygunite conservatives.

    But is this unique to the French colonial experience? I feel it goes much deeper than that.

    It is worth remembering both the Spanish and the British both had their empires which were much larger than what France held overseas...

    Both Spain and Britain managed their imperial-related immigration quite adeptly. In Spain you will find many South Americans living there. In Britain, there are many subjects of the commonwealth who live there as well.

    France is another ball of wax. The Algerian ex-pat in Paris does not feel particularly French, whereas the Chilean in Madrid or the Aussie in Manchester would feel right at home in their respective adopted homes...
    I suspect that most of the south american migrants in Spain are educated and culturally sophisticated -- and most have flown there from the upper strata of south american society (and are largely of Europeon descent)

    The Hispanic americans who come here in contrast, are the least educated and are culturally unsophisticated -- and have mostly arrived here by bus and on foot.

    Now why does France have this hostile relationship with her former subjects is, I suppose, a question that can be debated and written about ad nauseum. However, France's problem is now quickly becoming Europe's problem.
    See above -- France allowed the huge influx of a distinct culturally homogenous population -- a population whose conservative intolerant culture was organically antagonistic to France's hyper liberal, uber sophisticated, modern one.

    Despite the fact that most of these people already spoke French, once a population reaches a certain critical mass of quantity and concentration, cultural integration becomes immeasurably harder.

    In the US the same phenomenon could occur.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions