[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
ionia: Basically, the ignore the fact that a sizeable chunk of the world's population is suffering so that you can have Nikes, air-conditioning and a 19-inch flatscreen. Its not that they are suffering parallel to your own "easy life", though that would be bad in itself. One is a direct cause of the other.

Tell me how this is any different than the principle of slavery, colonialism, and all the other bull**** that America has allegedly left behind?

Unfortunately, this is one of the many "breakdowns" in our differing perspectives.  Am I expected to subscribe to the theory that the only reasons others "have not" is because we "have"?  This country, as a breakaway British colony, has only been at it for a little over 300 years.  That's some mighty fast growth.  Some of the country you're inferring (my presumption entirely) have been around 1000, 2000+ years or more.  How come they didn't come up with this stuff beforehand?

I can hear the arguments coming about "First World exploiting third world labor" (and this isn't just an American thing).  This is another part I'm honestly divided on.  Why are there no jobs in their own country?  IF someone in company X can make more bread working for an American oufit set up on their soil, rather than a national one, why not take the extra money?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ionia23
I don't know whether or not that was meant to be supportive, thank you nonetheless.

Neither really. Just trying to put to bed the myth that they bury their heads. I know most people simply use it as an expression and don't believe it's true but still

To be honest it surprises me that there are people who still believe it's true. This is a 9 foot tall bird with a top running speed of over 40mph and a kick that could kill a man with a single blow. And people think they bury their heads when scared?

[ionia23]

Originally posted by karajorma


Neither really. Just trying to put to bed the myth that they bury their heads. I know most people simply use it as an expression and don't believe it's true but still

To be honest it surprises me that there are people who still believe it's true. This is a 9 foot tall bird with a top running speed of over 40mph and a kick that could kill a man with a single blow. And people think they bury their heads when scared?

Here's a laugh for you.

A mere 40 miles north of me is a rather large ostrich farm.

[Gank]

Rictor its not that the man doesnt understand, he doesnt care.

[01010]

Originally posted by ionia23


Here's a laugh for you.

A mere 40 miles north of me is a rather large ostrich farm.

It'd only take an hour for them to get to your house and kick you to death.

I live less than three miles away from white lions. Kept in the open. God damn safari parks.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by ionia23


Unfortunately, this is one of the many "breakdowns" in our differing perspectives.  Am I expected to subscribe to the theory that the only reasons others "have not" is because we "have"?  This country, as a breakaway British colony, has only been at it for a little over 300 years.  That's some mighty fast growth.  Some of the country you're inferring (my presumption entirely) have been around 1000, 2000+ years or more.  How come they didn't come up with this stuff beforehand?

I can hear the arguments coming about "First World exploiting third world labor" (and this isn't just an American thing).  This is another part I'm honestly divided on.  Why are there no jobs in their own country?  IF someone in company X can make more bread working for an American oufit set up on their soil, rather than a national one, why not take the extra money?

A whole bunch of African nations have formed since de-colonization, in the past 50 years. No South American nation can possibly be more than 400-500 years old, though most are quite a bit younger. Most of Southern Asia got control of its governments back in the past 50-100 years. Many countries that were formerly under the USSR (To the East and to the South notably) have undegone major political changes since the fall of Communism.

So, pretty far off the mark there. Look at the countries which are currently in the ****ter; almost all are former colonies.

And no, Third World exploitation is by no means resitcted to America.  But the most numerous and worst offenders are American corporations.

Read up on free trade a bit, things may become clearer. The power of independent political and economic action is pretty much gone from Third World countries. The US has such enormous amounts of influence to throw around on behalf of multinations, that the vast majority of countries are powerless to disobey, unless its armed rebellion.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Styxx


Muad'dib?  

In the event of the Butlerian Jihad, hide your heavily modded computer and collection of computer games.

[Jiggyhound]

* drinks tea *

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor


A whole bunch of African nations have formed since de-colonization, in the past 50 years. No South American nation can possibly be more than 400-500 years old, though most are quite a bit younger. Most of Southern Asia got control of its governments back in the past 50-100 years. Many countries that were formerly under the USSR (To the East and to the South notably) have undegone major political changes since the fall of Communism.

So, pretty far off the mark there. Look at the countries which are currently in the ****ter; almost all are former colonies.

And no, Third World exploitation is by no means resitcted to America.  But the most numerous and worst offenders are American corporations.

Read up on free trade a bit, things may become clearer. The power of independent political and economic action is pretty much gone from Third World countries. The US has such enormous amounts of influence to throw around on behalf of multinations, that the vast majority of countries are powerless to disobey, unless its armed rebellion.

I think I get it.  Any country that was once a colony of another country is still suffering from the effects of said-colonization.

But what's that say about America?  Was it not a colony itself that rebelled?

And how many of these countries were American colonies?

You also mentioned that America has reached a level of power signifigant enough to influence just about any country it wants.

What would you prefer that influence be used for?  Or, barring, that would you have a slightly higher opinion of America if it went 100% isolationist? (no purchasing of foreign products, or sale of domestic products to foreigners, sealed borders, zero trade, return of American corporations from overseas, etc.?)

I'm honestly not being a smartass on #2.

[Grey Wolf]

We had some economic colonies (basically dominating the government with money from businesses), but not quite on the same scale as Germany and England. Close, but not quite.

In the event of pure isolationism, meanwhile, I'm moving to Canada.

[mikhael]

So perhaps armed rebellion is the answer?

[diamondgeezer]

Sorry to drag this thing back a few pages, but Setekh - what the hell is wrong with you?

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
We had some economic colonies (basically dominating the government with money from businesses), but not quite on the same scale as Germany and England. Close, but not quite.

In the event of pure isolationism, meanwhile, I'm moving to Canada.

Okay, I get it on that.

Despite my appearance of nationalism, I did write in another thread about this...how do I put it, utter ****ed up insanity that went on with American foreign policy starting at the end of WWII and running through the 1970's.  I'm just astonished when I read some of the things the various administrations did, well, everywhere.  It makes no sense to me at all.

I just wonder, would isolationism be the way to go?

[Gank]

Originally posted by ionia23
What would you prefer that influence be used for?  Or, barring, that would you have a slightly higher opinion of America if it went 100% isolationist? (no purchasing of foreign products, or sale of domestic products to foreigners, sealed borders, zero trade, return of American corporations from overseas, etc.?)

you realise your country would fall apart within a week.

Your country needs oil, badly. Consumes 25% of world production. You stop importing it you can say goodbye to major industry, transport etc etc. Imagine a city of 20 million like new york with no food supply.

[Kazan]

*sighs* i'm not even going to bother giving a answer borken down by parts to the big post

you are totally freaking naive - everything i said in that post is BACKED UP BETTER THAN A SHIVAN WITH A SATHANAS

You are ignorant to the Nature of the USA PATRIOT Act, you are ignorant the nature of many of the laws that the current adminstration is trying to pas.. yada yada


you're just plain ignorant -- You're the poster child for the criminally ignorant.  The reason that asshat is in office is so many people like you don't look up from your feet to the horizon to see what the hell is going on around you

The ****ing man tried to get bigotry written into our constitution!  Are you that ****ing blind!

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Kazan
the fact that unemployement is at record high levels

[/b]

Hardly, Unemployment is about 4.5-5%, that's hardly record levels.  Unemployment was in DOUBLE DIGITS in the 30's.

our civil and human rights are being taken away by the government

I'll agree that it's absurd to strip search little-old ladies in airports, but the soldiers have not in the past, are not now and will not in the future be marching down the streets of America shooting people for Anti-Government propaganda.

Your little piss-ant complaining about Dubya's handling of the situation is getting old.  I'm onto you, you small-minded bugger, if 9/11 had not happened and we weren't at war(make no mistake it is a war) you would find some reason to whine and *****, and don't say you wouldn't.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Gank


you realise your country would fall apart within a week.

Your country needs oil, badly. Consumes 25% of world production. You stop importing it you can say goodbye to major industry, transport etc etc. Imagine a city of 20 million like new york with no food supply.

We could still ship food in with trains and the like. And New York only has about 10 million.

[Gank]

Thought it was twenty, and your whole train system is electric? And the electrical grid is totally oil free?

[Kazan]

Liberator: you don't even know what the **** im talking about so I highly advise you shut your trap

Of course you'd support him in what I'm talking about Since you're a Neoconservative homophobic misogynist bastard

[the only part of that of questionable factuality is the last word - the other three imply the last one - so that's not an insult, just a statement of fact]

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Kazan
*sighs* i'm not even going to bother giving a answer borken down by parts to the big post

I understand, I went a bit overboard on that one.

you are totally freaking naive - everything i said in that post is BACKED UP BETTER THAN A SHIVAN WITH A SATHANAS

Well, given, from some perspectives that might be the case.  I'm sure you could find plenty of people to agree with you, as could I.  And, if I recall correctly, wasn't it one dinky little Herc that helped take down the Sathanas you're referring to?  Any argument can be torpedoed with the right point at the right time.  Your statements were very strong, this is true.  But backed?  I didn't see it, I'm sorry.

You are ignorant to the Nature of the USA PATRIOT Act, you are ignorant the nature of many of the laws that the current adminstration is trying to pas.. yada yada

 The Patriot Act was signed during a time of deep-rooted panic in this nation and administration.  It will not last.  And as for the laws this administration is trying to pass, sure they're Orwellian.  But there are plenty of congressional leaders who disagree with them, and plenty in the citzenry who do as well.

you're just plain ignorant -- You're the poster child for the criminally ignorant.  The reason that asshat is in office is so many people like you don't look up from your feet to the horizon to see what the hell is going on around you

I am doing my best to remain objective and level-headed, despite some of my outbursts in earlier threads.  There's a number of different opinions around here worth investigating, including yours, or I wouldn't respond.  However, please knock it off with the names.  I've extended you that courtesy, please do likewise.

President **** got elected due to a number of questionable votes in the state of Florida.  I did get up and vote that day, and I voted for Gore (lesser of two evils, but I truly feared Tipper being in a position of real power.  Anyone in the arts should..).  I did my part then, I will do likewise in November.

The ****ing man tried to get bigotry written into our constitution!  Are you that ****ing blind!

And Strom Thurmond fathered a child with a black woman while he was campaigning for segregation.  There shouldn't have to be a Constitutional amendment to extend current marital benefits to same-sex couples.  

Sexual activity is protected under various privacy laws.  You may not ask me if I have sex with my wife (not that I have one) for it's not your business.  So, with sexual relations off the table, what else is there? Cohabitation?

I can think of a number of married couples where sexual activity is non-existent (ho ho ho).  Does this render a marriage null and void?  Boy i'd love to see THAT on Court TV.

"She can have the alimony, but I want some p***y payments!" - Chris Rock

I live with another guy.  Whether or not we're "carnally bonded" can't be considered part of the equation.  Therefore, a marriage ban on same-sex couples is already unlawful.  People in a decision-making capacity are fighting as we speak.

Sure, President **** considered and/or tried to have a Constitutional amendment added banning same-sex marriages.  He can try all he wants.  Unless he's able to fill every seat in the Supreme Court with people who believe exactly as he do, it'll never happen.  Even if he did, it would be irrelevant because.....

Congress has to make the determination on the legal definition of marriage.  This is to prevent a marriage being legal in one state and illegal in another.