"Beginning of the end of America"

D_Herin_Ghan

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Posts
671
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Chuck Knoblauch should have hit him instead of his mother with that baseball in 98.

Give me a break, this is the same over embellished rhetoric that Olberman always flaunts.

Talk about media hype.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
LINittanyLion said:
Chuck Knoblauch should have hit him instead of his mother with that baseball in 98.

Give me a break, this is the same over embellished rhetoric that Olberman always flaunts.

Talk about media hype.
Nittany, hate to be picky but... the man you've misquoted in your signature line would probably STRONGLY dissagree with you. Habeas corpus is ONE OF THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLES of our country!

Now, would you please do me a favor? Franklin never said "Those willing to sacrifice freedoms for security deserve neither." What he actually said (November 11, 1755 in the Pennsylvania Assembly) was: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Seems more fitting to this particular situation when it's worded properly. Fix your signature line, please?
 

BuddyBoy

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Posts
243
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Location
Canada
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
It survived 3 democratic and 4 republican successive presidents before being rescinded on April 19, 1976 by president Gerald Ford (dem).
Ford was a republican - he served as Nixon's second VP.
 

BuddyBoy

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Posts
243
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Location
Canada
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
I always find it amusing, disappointing, and ironic that the american people actually fall for the propaganda. If "country A" interferes with internal affairs in "country B", it is terrorism and imperialism. If the USA interferes in "country A", it is "in the name of our national security, and making the world safe for democracy." The actions are the same, but if it's us, it's god's will. If it's them, they are evil and must be destroyed.

No wonder there are so many "american-haters" out there.
And what I find really dispicable and sad is that Americans tell their children "The world hates us because they're jealous of our freedom."

Talk about not accepting responsibility or consequences for your actions.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
BuddyBoy said:
Ford was a republican - he served as Nixon's second VP.
Duh. My bad. A slow brain and nimble fingers can be a liability.
BuddyBoy said:
And what I find really dispicable and sad is that Americans (the stupid ones, anyway) tell their children "The world hates us because they're jealous of our freedom."

Talk about not accepting responsibility or consequences for your actions.
A big, dangerous, major symptom of the ills in this country at the time. Trust me, we are not all like that.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
BuddyBoy said:
And what I find really dispicable and sad is that Americans tell their children "The world hates us because they're jealous of our freedom."

Talk about not accepting responsibility or consequences for your actions.

Freedom is a relative, subjective and frequently misunderstood term. As for your second sentence, I quite agree.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
dong20 said:
Freedom is a relative, subjective and frequently misunderstood term.
Perhaps. I'm not sure I entirely agree that it is relative or subjective, but it is most definitely frequently misunderstood.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
DC_DEEP said:
Perhaps. I'm not sure I entirely agree that it is relative or subjective, but it is most definitely frequently misunderstood.

I think it is - A purely political example.

Subjective: As an Englishman I have the freedom to openly criticise my Government without fear of retribution. But, how far do I need to go before that criticism becomes sedition, or agitation or even terrorism and who makes that determination and who gives them that right? That's right I DO. I may feel my freedom is being curtailed because I cannot protest outside Parliament, others may feel that such a protest is rightly curtailed because it undermines the Government. I may feel aggrieved because I can no longer hunt foxes, in either case am I being oppressed or unreasonable?

Relative: Again, as an Englishman I speak freely of my dissatisfaction with my Government as and when I please. I can tell my friends and we can all protest together without retribution provided we remain peaceful. In Singapore one can protest so long as the Government says you can. In Myanmar one cannot protest at all without fear of arrest (or worse).

When a Government, in peacetime can give itself powers to arbitrarily determine who it deems a threat to itself and/or its citizens and incarcerate them indefinitely, without due process or proper accountability. When it can do so and straight faced say to its electorate that it is doing so to protect those very freedoms it is undermining by doing just that, how can it have any credibility?

The land of the free - Sounds costly to me.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
Nice analogy, Freddie. However:

I disagree especially with the part I bolded. All this Act does is codify and in some twisted way seek to justify American current foreign and domestic policy.

Interfering in the sovereignty of other nations, overtly or covertly has been standard US foreign policy MO for at least the last 50 years. For that reason alone I don't think the American Republic has been admired the world over for a long time, if indeed it ever truly was.
At the end of World War II America was greatly admired. Then.....it ihas been a downward slide since.

Of course as an Englishman, you know that much of the world thinks the smae of the United Kingdom as they do of the USA. The UK was once the mighty British Empire that certainly ruled a foruth of the world. There is still resentment of Britian's colonial past.

But America was SUPPOSED to do better. That was what the American Revolution was about. Sadly, America in reality is an empire.

While as an Enlgishman you might disagree, but I refer often in talking politics here on this side of the pond as the Anglo-American Empire. Britain and US have been in lockstep now for so long, I forget that we aren't really the same.

I don't think of Britain as foreigners. Most Americans today don't. Nor Canada, New Zealand or Australia.

Some in American political science view this Anglo-American Empire as replacing the British Empire only in many ways stronger: Much like the Roman Empire in its last years with two capitals Rome and Constantinople.

And I think regardless how you feel about it. America and Britain have almost the same foreign policy always backing each other when the other one needs it.

Not saying that this Empire is right, it is just the way it is.
 

tmny

1st Like
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Posts
171
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
161
Location
earth
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Freddie53 said:
At the end of World War II America was greatly admired. Then.....it ihas been a downward slide since.

I'd say it was admired by those who supported it, and shared it's values certainly in Europe. Yes, I do agree its reputation was higher, whether that reputation was any more justified I'm less certain of. I'm not singling out the US here just keeping on topic.

Freddie53 said:
Of course as an Englishman, you know that much of the world thinks the smae of the United Kingdom as they do of the USA. The UK was once the mighty British Empire that certainly ruled a foruth of the world. There is still resentment of Britian's colonial past.

But America was SUPPOSED to do better. That was what the American Revolution was about. Sadly, America in reality is an empire.

While as an Enlgishman you might disagree, but I refer often in talking politics here on this side of the pond as the Anglo-American Empire. Britain and US have been in lockstep now for so long, I forget that we aren't really the same.

I'm pretty much with you. As a former colonial power, perhaps THE colonial power we have a less that rosy history and yet we are, in general I believe viewed with less resentment and scepticism that the US which was never really been more than a bit player on the colonial stage. The US-UK relationship has been around a while, looks to be for some time longer.

Freddie53 said:
I don't think of Britain as foreigners. Most Americans today don't. Nor Canada, New Zealand or Australia.

Some in American political science view this Anglo-American Empire as replacing the British Empire only in many ways stronger: Much like the Roman Empire in its last years with two capitals Rome and Constantinople.

And I think regardless how you feel about it. America and Britain have almost the same foreign policy always backing each other when the other one needs it.

Not saying that this Empire is right, it is just the way it is.

I think a difference between the nascent UK/US empire (if it be so and I'm not convinced it is) and the former British empire is that the former would be a geo-political one based primarily on ideology whereas the latter a physical one based entirely on economics. I'm over simplifying of course but as a general rule the British only intervened intentionally and heavy handedly in internal cultural affairs when they threatened the flow of money or the stability of the empire.

There are some notable exceptions of course. But that is a crucial difference. I don't believe in imperialism, it never lasts, history has proven that repeatedly. Knowing that it surprises me that the we would even consider embarking on a path doomed to certain failure. But another thing history teaches us, is that we seldom learn from history! :rolleyes:
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Dong, that last sentence is chilling in its accuracy. Greed (like xenophobia) is a constant among human beings. One would hope that the process of evolving as a species would include overcoming some of our baser instincts rather than excusing them, and while I am certain that is true, there are many among us who argue for their rights to remain base.

I get so fucking sick of people saying "It's just natural to like your own kind more than those who are different and to look out for your own needs to the exclusion of others", as if being "natural" was a valid excuse for being a disgusting human being! It's not, it's just the logic of the illogical, the wisdom of the extremely stupid.

No, they don't learn from history, in fact, learning is not their goal. Learning requires the ability to weigh and assign value to bits of information and then assimilate that new knowledge into the vast array of known circumstances in which we live. It requires us to be willing to GROW BEYOND the limitations of previously determined conventions and take risks that we may be wrong.

Those who require the safety of the opinions of others and cling to "tradition" will ALWAYS be a detriment to any group, and the human condition as a whole. I refer to this brand of thinking as "stupid", because that's what it is. I refer to it as "dangerous", and history is bearing that out right before our eyes.

I remember posting after the fallen election in 2004 that the right to say "I told you so" will sound hollow in the wreck that will be America by the time it collapses. Fuck ALL you blind right-wing assholes that helped usher in our demise. I KNEW this was coming, but then I have an uncanny ability to pick up on the readily apparent.:rolleyes:
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
I never learn to stop thinking "I'm in love!" :p

*Ahem*

While in general, the US does look after its (caucasion) citizens pretty well, I think it makes any argument FOR the US' favour abroad pretty shallow.

Remember that we're fighting nutcases who want to enslave us and put a twisted version of law onto our heads. :biggrin1:

To comment on Dong. I don't feel there is a UK in a UK-US empire. When the blood of slaves and the conquered built up the UK, then it was a power, but since strange concepts like 'freedom' and 'equality' cropped up, we're not much more than a nation of lawyers, bankers, chavs and scum. Our millitary might is disproportionate to the size of power that our nation has and we're being used by the US as cannon fodder more or less.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
big dirigible said:
So by the postulated argument ("we live in a trance", blah blah - not really an argument), the American experiment ended in ignominy when Franklin Roosevelt signed that order in February 1942. Perhaps America recovered a bit in 1988, when the odious policy was officially reversed by Ronald Reagan.

eh? That's not really an argument either. Its just an equally contrived and opportunistic piece of GOP propaganda.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
ORCABOMBER said:
To comment on Dong. I don't feel there is a UK in a UK-US empire. When the blood of slaves and the conquered built up the UK, then it was a power, but since strange concepts like 'freedom' and 'equality' cropped up, we're not much more than a nation of lawyers, bankers, chavs and scum. Our millitary might is disproportionate to the size of power that our nation has and we're being used by the US as cannon fodder more or less.

I agree, there isn't although there has been, for several years an increasingly joined at the hip approach to foreign policy. As I suggested any 'empire', real or imagined is more one of ideology rather than geography. I'm not sure that isn't somehow even less honest.:rolleyes:
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
dong20 said:
I agree, there isn't although there has been, for several years an increasingly joined at the hip approach to foreign policy. As I suggested any 'empire', real or imagined is more one of ideology rather than geography. I'm not sure that isn't somehow even less honest.:rolleyes:

I think it is certainly more intimidating.
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
I agree, there isn't although there has been, for several years an increasingly joined at the hip approach to foreign policy. As I suggested any 'empire', real or imagined is more one of ideology rather than geography. I'm not sure that isn't somehow even less honest.:rolleyes:
My problem is that when it comes to our boy's arses being kicked in foreign countries, we're inseperable, yet Rummie just doesn't seem to give his 'allies' the thanks they deserve.

What's the bet that the new law still works on British citizens though?