so i can call baka a no-balls piece of shit and he won't know??........cool....
Printable View
so i can call baka a no-balls piece of shit and he won't know??........cool....
What a bunch of childish motherfuckers!
I can see them, spitting on their monitors, banging their keyboards, and screaming about how that fuckin SDVM is calling them a pube/neocon/dumbya lover. :smiley36:
No wonder the neocons want to shelter themselves away from anyone with a differing opinion than them. The more they try to argue a point, the more their head starts to smoke. It's a fuckin fire hazard! :smiley36:
Funny part is, I actually wanted to mention some information about the current Israeli-Lebanese conflict, but the thread now has nothing to do with that...Quote:
Originally Posted by thepyrofish
The 60's and the Vietnam conflict were a turning point in our society. IMO you didn't really get a lot of protestors until that era hit. Before that, you had a generally stong feeling of nationalism and patriotism in the population. Leftovers of the depression being followed by WW2. REAL and SERIOUS problems like those kind of give people a different perspective on life.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokinDVM
The way protestors are treated really isn't directly related to the President. The local officials are primarily responsible for that I think. Although I'm sure Secret Service agent's don't object to anything that keeps dissenters further away from the President.
Slowly over the course of the 20th century, the government, particularly the office of the President, became less accessible, as well. One President even had a day of the week set aside to meet with the public. All you had to do was set up an appointment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenyth
These days, you'd be lucky to get a face-to-face with an aide to your congressional representatives. I think that isolates people from their government quite a bit. That makes it feel like the only way you can have your voice heard is to stage a massive protest.
Aside from the Vietnam Era (which was defined by protests), most protests have been swept under the rug of history. The only ones I can recall are suffrage, the depression, and the civil rights movement.
When you think back on even recent events (Iran Contra and Clinton's Impeachment come to mind), you tend to remember the events, not the protests (although each was pretty heavily protested).
"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
– Frederick Douglass, African-American abolitionist
As demonstrated above, the US has a history of protestors. They were less effective in the 19th Century, compared to the 20th, most probably due to transportation difficulties making it next to impossible to get large groups together. I don't think it was due to any respect for the office, unless the person holding it was really deserving.
It's my understanding that Lincoln used to have people gather in certain areas of the White House, and would actually go and talk to them. Even during the Civil War, he would still carry out that practice, often speaking with the families of soldiers who had fallen in battle.
The present admins SOP is to avoid the subject of dead soldiers altogether, especially involving the families.
Even if these "facts" were 100% correct, take a look at everything they count. These are all murders that have happened in Iraq. NOT deaths caused directly by Coalition Forces. The United States seems to be far more secure on the streets and just for 2003 and 2004 there were 32,719 homicides in the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperChuck
No matter what anyone says, neither US nor any other country are truly going to influence what happens in this area of the Middle East. In this part of the world, Muslims are born hating Jews and the state of Israel. And the same is bred into the Jews to hate the Muslims. No treaties or agreements are going to fix the situation. The only way for there to be true stabilization without a war is if Isreal were to give up all of her land completely and dissolve itself. However, Israel has the right to exist. It is their land. And no, I'm not referencing that to the old Isreal from biblical times, I am talking the recent 60's Israel. They took the land and now it is theirs. If this were to have happened as a Muslim state and not a Jewish state, there would have been no public outcry. There would not be hundreds and hundreds of "martyrs" every year to push and take back the motherland.
Isreal is definitely responding harshly to the kidnappings of its soldiers. But what if they hadn't responded like they are now? That would mean they would have to learn to accept their soldiers being kidnapped as a normal occurance. And honestly, if I were in the soldier's position, I would want my country to respond as Israel has.
In a few more posts you'll see me saying I wish they had included only civilian deaths directly attributed to "Coalition" (well, mostly US) attacks. :smiley1:Quote:
Originally Posted by toasty
I do know that it eclipsed the 3000 mark before the occupation (I want to say it was before the ground campaign started, but I'm not certain).
I can see their point in indirectly blaming the occupation for things like suicide bombings, but it's much more important to see directly attributable deaths. Indirectly attributable deaths are a nice sidebar or footnote, but should not be the focus...
(Actually, I don't think I read the details screen before posting the first time; I stopped watching that page after the number went over 3000; at that point I don't think we had even started a ground campaign; yes, I realize how many semicolons I used in this sentence)
They are also counting all Iraqi deaths as civilian deaths also though. Insurgent, Soldier and Child are all tallied the same way. Yes I know that the number of "insurgent deaths" will be exaggerated on the administration side, but of course they are going to be completely lowballed on the other side as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperChuck
No fair editing posts while I'm replying... :smiley2:
That's largely a generalization. Your average guy on the street wants to make a decent living, feed his family, raise his kids. It's the leaders and radicals you have to look out for. It's a little like saying everyone south of the Mason-Dixon is racist and in the KKK. That's really a minority, but they're loud.Quote:
Originally Posted by toasty
Given the history of war in the region, it's an understandable hatred. There's been so much back and forth between Israel and other nations. Just in this little conflict in Lebanon, the Lebanese hate the Israelis for bombing the crap out of them, and the Israelis are mad at the Lebanese and Hezbollah for kidnapping their soldiers (and therefore feel justified in attacking Lebanon), and Hezbollah (and most Lebanese at the time) felt justified in kidnapping those soldiers because the Israelis have some of their soldiers. I'm sure it goes further back, too.
Weel, the WWII Allies kind of had something to do with the creation of Israel...Quote:
However, Israel has the right to exist. It is their land. And no, I'm not referencing that to the old Isreal from biblical times, I am talking the recent 60's Israel. They took the land and now it is theirs.
That's actually one of the things I liked about this site (at least initially, when it was all civilian kills). They take in reports from multiple sources and use the highest and lowest. Despite the "liberal" label I've probably earned, I want to know the most accurate news. News that is weighted on either side of an issue is just useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by toasty
And I the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperChuck
Hey SuperChuck...You may be a liberal but I respect you. You and I had a debate awhile back and together we kept it civil. It's all in how you express yourself.
[QUOTE=SuperChuck]No fair editing posts while I'm replying... :smiley2:
That's largely a generalization. Your average guy on the street wants to make a decent living, feed his family, raise his kids. It's the leaders and radicals you have to look out for. It's a little like saying everyone south of the Mason-Dixon is racist and in the KKK. That's really a minority, but they're loud...
QUOTE]
I understand what you are saying, but I see it differently. Hatred of different races and religions is rampant in the middle east. Children are educated at home and in schools to hate other cultures even in their own country because they are not of the "God chosen" religion or ethnicity. Our culture downplays religion when it comes to social interaction with others, but in the middle east religion is the driving force of everything they do. And war is not a concept that has never been experienced in their homeland, it is something that has always been a part of their current life or recent history. I think that's what we sometimes fail to understand. I don't believe we can put ourselves in the average Joe's shoes, nor can we expect that they are thinking the same way we are. Hatred of other cultures and races is a normal part of their everyday life, much as the natural (at the time) hatred and resentment that existed between blacks and whites in this country during reconstruction.
The reason they hate everyone so much is what in psychology is a called a "reaction complex." Basically, since everything over there is so crappy, they project the blame for their situation on someone else. The west "stole" our riches from them. Throughout history, Jews have usually been smarter and more successful than other cultures, starting banks, businesses, etc., as a result this jealousy has cause many groups, not just Muslims, to hate them.
That, quite possibly, is the most racist thing I've seen posted just about anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWidow
Its not racist. People have been jealous of Jews throughout recorded history as a result of their many accomplishments, perfecting a banking system 2,000 years ago just being one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWidow
you,among them,perhaps??....
What does that mean?
If you're implying that I hate Jews, please explain how complimenting them makes that true. They've done many great things throughout history, for which they should be commended. I think this is why they have gotten so much crap from so many people over thousands of years - jealousy, or, as I said before, a "reaction complex."
I'm all against racism, but you guys are taking WW's statement out of context. An objective comment on the successes or shortcomings of a culture aren't really racist, but they can easily become so.