Heartland

Bush is the puppet on a string, held in the cold dead hands of Poppa Shrub and the GOP. He's an idiot, but he doesn't run the country (I almost wrote company there...Freudian slip? Perchance...), it's the Syndicate you want to be attacking for the actions and attitudes of Empire Amerika.

boudicca wrote:

Ed Rhombus wrote:

steamhammerdave wrote:Until then, he's an asshole.

I would have said 'arse' rather than 'ass'

That's Bouds and her American influnces for you

SHUT IT YOU!

In my defence... I would generally say arsehole myself, but since we're talking about the President of the U.S.A., I thought I'd put my "never use a 'z' in an 'isation' word" principles to the side.

Even 'Claims Direct' wouldn't take you defence

Ed Rhombus wrote:

boudicca wrote:

Ed Rhombus wrote:

I would have said 'arse' rather than 'ass'

That's Bouds and her American influnces for you

SHUT IT YOU!

In my defence... I would generally say arsehole myself, but since we're talking about the President of the U.S.A., I thought I'd put my "never use a 'z' in an 'isation' word" principles to the side.

Even 'Claims Direct' wouldn't take you defence

Made me choke on my coffee, that did!

timsinister wrote:Bush is the puppet on a string

Oh, I wonder if one day that
He'll say that
He's mine
...

MrChris wrote:

timsinister wrote:Bush is the puppet on a string

Oh, I wonder if one day that
He'll say that
He's mine
...

I hate that damn song. That infamous picture of me passed out on a patio was at a party comprised entirely of females, who sang that song over and over and over and over again...

Hence the passing out, and nothing to do with industrial amounts of vodka. Nope.

timsinister wrote:

MrChris wrote:

timsinister wrote:Bush is the puppet on a string

Oh, I wonder if one day that
He'll say that
He's mine
...

I hate that damn song. That infamous picture of me passed out on a patio was at a party comprised entirely of females, who sang that song over and over and over and over again...

*makes mental note*

I don't believe you wanted to tell me that, Timothy!

timsinister wrote:I hate that damn song. That infamous picture of me passed out on a patio was at a party comprised entirely of females, who sang that song over and over and over and over again...

Hence the passing out, and nothing to do with industrial amounts of vodka. Nope.

How can the party have comprised entirely of females if you were there?


Unless........

...aside from your roving reporter, of course.

timsinister wrote:...aside from your roving reporter, of course.

"Our man on the spot"

Oh goodie! I'm not too late to post

Numerous responses. Touched a bit of a nerve, did I?

In my experience all people from Texas are idiots.

Hasty generalization. Nice contribution. Thank you for playing.

EXCUSE ME?!? Because you are a professor (or so your profile tells me) some people on HL make typing errors....happenes to the best of us!
Bush is a F*ck head president and before throwing things out about politics and worldly statements....be warned....some of us on HL actually DO know what is going on.....so in this world of grey shades....coming in from this point is very brave....
Goddamn the Americans who are so narrow-minded!!!
@Ocean Moves - it is o.k.....

I'm sure some people do know about politics hereabouts. I rather suspect you're not one of them. Ultimately, however, the problem isn't typing errors, it's an inability to express ideas in a rationally comprehensible fashion. 'Bush is a F*ck head president' isn't exactly a meaningful contribution to dialogue. Neither is 'Bush is the greatest'--you can be a mouthbreather on the left or the right, dig?

I'm sorry but that's a classic...

I thought it was quite funny myself. You would rather it was favour, colour, honour, etc?

You go for it Sultan, nothing wrong with a little debate.

Why thank you, good sir. Debate about important issues is necessary. The answers are never as clear as many of us would like to think. A necessary part of debate is putting forward ideas with clarity and precision. Most of the political and social problems in Western society I think stem from an unwillingness to have a serious public debate about things.

Oh God. The spelling thing. Shakespeare: idiot. Spelled his name seventeen different ways. Einstein: dyslexic nincompoop. Huh. Clearly, people who have not been taught to spell in a certain way cannot, therefore, THINK. Clearly, before standardised spelling was introduced in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people's thought processes were horribly confused and incapable of any form of logic. Newton achieved nothing, because some people said gravity and others said gravitie.

The old spear-shaker worked within the conventions (or lack thereof) of the age he lived in, and he presented his thoughts with clarity. Einstein and Newton were, first and foremost, mathematical thinkers, and much of what they did was expressed mathematically. Politics, and thus discourse about it, does not really fall under the rubric of mathematics (unless you want to spend your time graphing election results and opinion polls). Politics, like philosophy or any of the other liberal arts demands clarity and precision in language. Otherwise you're not having a discussion--you have Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly yelling at each other (or if you want a more British example, maybe you have George Galloway and the National Front screaming at each other).

'Al Qaeda in Iraq', @Ocean Moves, is not a new phenomenon, but is the name of a previously-unknown ORGANISATION which claimed responsibility for the bomb attacks earlier this week. No-one should be surprised by the activities of pro-al Qaeda groups in Iraq; what is really unfortunate is how the Bush and Blair governments find in it a bizarre post-facto justification for the horrible adventure they are engaged in.

NB: any spelling mistakes clearly render anything I've said here incoherent and meaningless. Not.

Actually, 'AQ in Iraq' have been publicly using that name for some time--at least since the time Zarqawi publicly swore allegiance to bin Laden and took on the title 'emir of Iraq.' I don't have a timeline handy, but it's been at least six months, hasn't it?


Oh dear. You know, Germans write in an odd mixture of upper and lower case, too? And can anyone think of a significant German philosopher? * Marx, Kant, Fichte, Herder, Goethe, Nietzsche, Heidegger, von Humboldt, Habermas etc etc - inveterate capitalisers of Nouns, all of them.

Yes, but it's within their linguistic convention, i.e. it falls under the rules for clear and correct expression in German writing. What's your point? That you know some names of German thinkers? Very good, I applaud you.

So it's laughably simplistic to condemn a man that spent 20 minutes reading to children after he heard about the September 11th attacks? A man who spent four days sitting on his pampered ar$e while people were dying in New Orleans? But what the fcuk, right? They were only poor people and blacks, they're never going to vote Republican are they?

As long as it doesn't stand in the way of the Almighty Dollar...

Makes me want to puke.

No, not at all. It's laughably simplistic to reduce political discussion to 'Hurr hurr Bush-Hitler bad' just as it's laughably simplistic to reduce it to 'Hurr hurr Bush double-plus-good.' Moral outrage that isn't tempered and ultimately moderated by reason is no good (go re-read your copy of the Republic and ask yourself why Socrates spends so much time talking to Glaucon). You might also want to look at the US Constitution. The president, as a federal official, cannot order the military into a state without the explicit request of the governor (unless a state of insurrection is declared, which is what Lincoln did during the civil war). Kathleen Blanco waited 24 hours to make such a request--in fact, she only gave the evacuation order (and that at the last minute) because the President called her a number of times and requested her to do it. Mayor Nagin of New Orleans had a wonderful plan to evacuate the city in the event of a hurricane--the problem is, he didn't actually implement it. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.


If I could hear him make a statement about Iraq, Katrina, his relationship with the UK or anything else that actually tackled the issue at hand and argued his position well, without this "down-home straight-talkin' guy" veneer that hides the fact he never gets to any kind of point (cutting the crap and avoid any big words or weighty political discussion are not one and the same... "We're dealin' with it" doesn't actually tell me anything)... if he could make such a statement, then I'd reconsider my view.

Until then, he's an asshole.

In other words, you don't want political rhetoric. That's very high-minded of you, but there's no place in the world where public political speech isn't chock-full of rhetoric and spin.

Bush is the puppet on a string, held in the cold dead hands of Poppa Shrub and the GOP. He's an idiot, but he doesn't run the country (I almost wrote company there...Freudian slip? Perchance...), it's the Syndicate you want to be attacking for the actions and attitudes of Empire Amerika.

Thank you Michael Moore. Or is that a new Propagandhi song? It's nice rhetoric, but if you want to be taken seriously you'll need a bit more substance; until then, you're ranting and raving just as much as a Bill O'Reilly, a Michael Savage, or a Rush Limbaugh (to use American examples).




And for Mr. Blast: Fantastic record. Haven't heard it in ages...

sultan2075 wrote:Numerous responses. Touched a bit of a nerve, did I?

In my experience all people from Texas are idiots.

Hasty generalization. Nice contribution. Thank you for playing.

EXCUSE ME?!? Because you are a professor (or so your profile tells me) some people on HL make typing errors....happenes to the best of us!
Bush is a F*ck head president and before throwing things out about politics and worldly statements....be warned....some of us on HL actually DO know what is going on.....so in this world of grey shades....coming in from this point is very brave....
Goddamn the Americans who are so narrow-minded!!!
@Ocean Moves - it is o.k.....

I'm sure some people do know about politics hereabouts. I rather suspect you're not one of them. Ultimately, however, the problem isn't typing errors, it's an inability to express ideas in a rationally comprehensible fashion. 'Bush is a F*ck head president' isn't exactly a meaningful contribution to dialogue. Neither is 'Bush is the greatest'--you can be a mouthbreather on the left or the right, dig?

I'm sorry but that's a classic...

I thought it was quite funny myself. You would rather it was favour, colour, honour, etc?

You go for it Sultan, nothing wrong with a little debate.

Why thank you, good sir. Debate about important issues is necessary. The answers are never as clear as many of us would like to think. A necessary part of debate is putting forward ideas with clarity and precision. Most of the political and social problems in Western society I think stem from an unwillingness to have a serious public debate about things.

Oh God. The spelling thing. Shakespeare: idiot. Spelled his name seventeen different ways. Einstein: dyslexic nincompoop. Huh. Clearly, people who have not been taught to spell in a certain way cannot, therefore, THINK. Clearly, before standardised spelling was introduced in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people's thought processes were horribly confused and incapable of any form of logic. Newton achieved nothing, because some people said gravity and others said gravitie.

The old spear-shaker worked within the conventions (or lack thereof) of the age he lived in, and he presented his thoughts with clarity. Einstein and Newton were, first and foremost, mathematical thinkers, and much of what they did was expressed mathematically. Politics, and thus discourse about it, does not really fall under the rubric of mathematics (unless you want to spend your time graphing election results and opinion polls). Politics, like philosophy or any of the other liberal arts demands clarity and precision in language. Otherwise you're not having a discussion--you have Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly yelling at each other (or if you want a more British example, maybe you have George Galloway and the National Front screaming at each other).

'Al Qaeda in Iraq', @Ocean Moves, is not a new phenomenon, but is the name of a previously-unknown ORGANISATION which claimed responsibility for the bomb attacks earlier this week. No-one should be surprised by the activities of pro-al Qaeda groups in Iraq; what is really unfortunate is how the Bush and Blair governments find in it a bizarre post-facto justification for the horrible adventure they are engaged in.

NB: any spelling mistakes clearly render anything I've said here incoherent and meaningless. Not.

Actually, 'AQ in Iraq' have been publicly using that name for some time--at least since the time Zarqawi publicly swore allegiance to bin Laden and took on the title 'emir of Iraq.' I don't have a timeline handy, but it's been at least six months, hasn't it?


Oh dear. You know, Germans write in an odd mixture of upper and lower case, too? And can anyone think of a significant German philosopher? * Marx, Kant, Fichte, Herder, Goethe, Nietzsche, Heidegger, von Humboldt, Habermas etc etc - inveterate capitalisers of Nouns, all of them.

Yes, but it's within their linguistic convention, i.e. it falls under the rules for clear and correct expression in German writing. What's your point? That you know some names of German thinkers? Very good, I applaud you.

So it's laughably simplistic to condemn a man that spent 20 minutes reading to children after he heard about the September 11th attacks? A man who spent four days sitting on his pampered ar$e while people were dying in New Orleans? But what the fcuk, right? They were only poor people and blacks, they're never going to vote Republican are they?

As long as it doesn't stand in the way of the Almighty Dollar...

Makes me want to puke.

No, not at all. It's laughably simplistic to reduce political discussion to 'Hurr hurr Bush-Hitler bad' just as it's laughably simplistic to reduce it to 'Hurr hurr Bush double-plus-good.' Moral outrage that isn't tempered and ultimately moderated by reason is no good (go re-read your copy of the Republic and ask yourself why Socrates spends so much time talking to Glaucon). You might also want to look at the US Constitution. The president, as a federal official, cannot order the military into a state without the explicit request of the governor (unless a state of insurrection is declared, which is what Lincoln did during the civil war). Kathleen Blanco waited 24 hours to make such a request--in fact, she only gave the evacuation order (and that at the last minute) because the President called her a number of times and requested her to do it. Mayor Nagin of New Orleans had a wonderful plan to evacuate the city in the event of a hurricane--the problem is, he didn't actually implement it. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.


If I could hear him make a statement about Iraq, Katrina, his relationship with the UK or anything else that actually tackled the issue at hand and argued his position well, without this "down-home straight-talkin' guy" veneer that hides the fact he never gets to any kind of point (cutting the crap and avoid any big words or weighty political discussion are not one and the same... "We're dealin' with it" doesn't actually tell me anything)... if he could make such a statement, then I'd reconsider my view.

Until then, he's an asshole.

In other words, you don't want political rhetoric. That's very high-minded of you, but there's no place in the world where public political speech isn't chock-full of rhetoric and spin.

Bush is the puppet on a string, held in the cold dead hands of Poppa Shrub and the GOP. He's an idiot, but he doesn't run the country (I almost wrote company there...Freudian slip? Perchance...), it's the Syndicate you want to be attacking for the actions and attitudes of Empire Amerika.

Thank you Michael Moore. Or is that a new Propagandhi song? It's nice rhetoric, but if you want to be taken seriously you'll need a bit more substance; until then, you're ranting and raving just as much as a Bill O'Reilly, a Michael Savage, or a Rush Limbaugh (to use American examples).




And for Mr. Blast: Fantastic record. Haven't heard it in ages...

I bet that took you ages

Not really. I type quickly and accurately.

steamhammerdave wrote:In my experience all people from Texas are idiots.

I most certainly agree with you on that!

sultan2075 wrote:Numerous responses. Touched a bit of a nerve, did I?

I think you'd find a similar... actually no, a much less considered response from the majority of people in Europe. Politically and culturally your closest allies. Let's not even start on the rest of the world.
It's a "nerve" because many of us are alarmed and rather disgusted by what we see. You may think that's wrong, but when there is so negative feeling for your President outside your own country, you may want to consider why.
I don't know, maybe you have. I certainly would.

sultan2075 wrote:

boudicca wrote:]If I could hear him make a statement about Iraq, Katrina, his relationship with the UK or anything else that actually tackled the issue at hand and argued his position well, without this "down-home straight-talkin' guy" veneer that hides the fact he never gets to any kind of point (cutting the crap and avoid any big words or weighty political discussion are not one and the same... "We're dealin' with it" doesn't actually tell me anything)... if he could make such a statement, then I'd reconsider my view.

Until then, he's an asshole.

In other words, you don't want political rhetoric. That's very high-minded of you, but there's no place in the world where public political speech isn't chock-full of rhetoric and spin.

No, I wouldn't say that. I simply don't like when political rhetoric takes the place of genuine debate and justification of policies.

It's true that there are shades of grey with most issues but with Bush and the Neo-Cons that he represents there just aren't. As timsinister said he's just a puppet. A very dangerous though not very credible one.

As for spelling, it's not an issue where debate is concerned IMHO, it's the quality of the argument.

[quote="MadameButterfly"]Bush is a [b]F*ck head president[/b] and before throwing things out about politics and worldly statements....be warned....some of us on HL actually [b]DO[/b] know what is going on....
[/quote]

No you don't. In my three years on this forum, I would opine that most of you don't have a scooby. And although you think you do, provided that your hopelessly ill-informed prejudices and woefully argued views are kept to this forum then I won't lose any sleep over them.

Clucking Belle wrote:
No you don't. In my three years on this forum, I would opine that most of you don't have a scooby. And although you think you do, provided that your hopelessly ill-informed prejudices and woefully argued views are kept to this forum then I won't lose any sleep over them.

Regardless of subject I love that kind of comment - "you don't have a clue, you just think you do". Unlike "me" of course.

ruffers wrote:

Clucking Belle wrote:
No you don't. In my three years on this forum, I would opine that most of you don't have a scooby. And although you think you do, provided that your hopelessly ill-informed prejudices and woefully argued views are kept to this forum then I won't lose any sleep over them.

Regardless of subject I love that kind of comment - "you don't have a clue, you just think you do". Unlike "me" of course.

yes - it's one of those completely unsubstantiated statements people come out with from the cosy security and safety of an anonymous computer screen. I think they're great - someone should collect them and make a book of them.

As far as I'm concerned, any man who considers 10 percent of the population to be sinners by birth should be taken out and f*cking shot, not given charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

C*nt.

@Motz: Seconded.

[quote="sultan2075"]
I'm sure some people do know about politics hereabouts. I rather suspect you're not one of them.

About politics your suspicion is incorrect as that is exactly the course I have laid out at my feet in the coming winter months. Although my challenge is doing the political course in the language of the country I am now living in and because of the fact that I am a foreigner to translate from Dutch to English, it is indeed a challenge to enrich my mind. You see I will be debating anything I feel needs to be brought to attention with the fifty signatures of people believing in what I am doing or wanting to take to The Hague parliament. I am now referring to a diplomatic system where regardless of religion the people want to live in harmony with each other respecting each other's beliefs and cultures so that the generations to follow are much less prejudice towards each other. The Netherlands in regards to the EU made a very loud and clear statement in our referendum which was NO to the new European Constitution Law.

Ultimately, however, the problem isn't typing errors, it's an inability to express ideas in a rationally comprehensible fashion. 'Bush is a F*ck head president' isn't exactly a meaningful contribution to dialogue. Neither is 'Bush is the greatest'--you can be a mouthbreather on the left or the right, dig?

Dig this without sounding respectless...George Bush has dug his own grave while the world has been watching him do so. I for one have no respect for that man that happens to be the president and if I ever had to meet the man would tell him so too. Bush is a man that loves power and then uses it all the wrong way and starts wars and has no respect for anything more than the dollar or buck to be gained.

'Al Qaeda in Iraq', @Ocean Moves, is not a new phenomenon, but is the name of a previously-unknown ORGANISATION which claimed responsibility for the bomb attacks earlier this week. No-one should be surprised by the activities of pro-al Qaeda groups in Iraq; what is really unfortunate is how the Bush and Blair governments find in it a bizarre post-facto justification for the horrible adventure they are engaged in.

LIVE8....when the powerful leaders of the world were to have meetings to discuss the poverty in Africa and globally, when the ORGANISATION disrupted those meetings and the whole of Europe which indeed took a global realization of terrorism and the links within took the world politics back to safety and security within the countries starting by there own. Both Bush and Blair had a run for their money. Sorry to interupt the world is now watching both of you.

You must also understand that I watched the power of a legendary president that prepared for his leadership confinded within the walls of a prison cell. Yes that one on Robben Island and yes I am talking about Nelson Mandela. He took all the european based discrimination of a race of people and turned it all around. The ANC or African National Congress came to power and South Africa will never be the same again.

I am a person who tries not to discriminate others as I believe everyone has rights. I do not judge as it is not my place to do so. I do believe in love and that people globally should start loving more but realistic in the fact that this does not always happen.

HL just to go off topic is a place where the love for THE SISTERS OF MERCY allows a family to grow...which it does and in the end to enjoy.

HAVE A NICE DAY

As far as I'm concerned, any man who considers 10 percent of the population to be sinners by birth should be taken out and f*cking shot, not given charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.


What do they teach you Europeans about your own cultural past? Nothing at all? He's a Christian (look it up). That means he thinks everyone in the world is born a sinner, not 10% of the population. You can't even insult the guy properly!

You see? This is the problem I tried to point out to you folks earlier. Your utterly ill-informed prejudices get in the way of any sort of serious discussion. I guess that's why most replies in this forum consist of a few brief sentence fragments held together by ellipses.

No, I wouldn't say that. I simply don't like when political rhetoric takes the place of genuine debate and justification of policies.

Yes, well, ideally those things occur in the Congess and the 'public square,' as well as in cabinet meetings. He did announce policy for dealing with the aftermath of Katrina in his speech the other night. Some of it, I think, is a very good idea (the Urban Homsetead Act for low-income families, I think, is Very Good Thing), some of it not so much. I'd be curious if the more substantive parts of the address were covered in the European media. That said, I think you, Boudicca, are one of the only people in this thread who seems to have grokked to the fact that I'm not some sort of Bush fanboy. I'm just sickened when ill-informed prejudice, empty sloganeering and half-assed arguments pass for political debate and discussion (and, while I won't be making any friends by saying this, I think that's generally the tone around here when it comes to the USA and anything related to it).



It's true that there are shades of grey with most issues but with Bush and the Neo-Cons that he represents there just aren't. As timsinister said he's just a puppet. A very dangerous though not very credible one.

As for spelling, it's not an issue where debate is concerned IMHO, it's the quality of the argument.

I'm glad that we have you here to tell us the truth about the nature of things. Thanks, Lucretius.

An argument that isn't expressed clearly isn't terribly effective--and most (but not necessarily all) of the time, it's not a good argument to begin with. Spell correctly if you want to be taken seriously in writing. That's the way of the world, get used to it. No one is going to hire you, for example--regardless of your qualifications for a given job--if your cover letter begins 'I'm am havening of an interesting for job.' Punctuation is also a wonderful, subtle, sublime and mysterious thing.


About politics your suspicion is incorrect as that is exactly the course I have laid out at my feet in the coming winter months. Although my challenge is doing the political course in the language of the country I am now living in and because of the fact that I am a foreigner to translate from Dutch to English, it is indeed a challenge to enrich my mind. You see I will be debating anything I feel needs to be brought to attention with the fifty signatures of people believing in what I am doing or wanting to take to The Hague parliament. I am now referring to a diplomatic system where regardless of religion the people want to live in harmony with each other respecting each other's beliefs and cultures so that the generations to follow are much less prejudice towards each other. The Netherlands in regards to the EU made a very loud and clear statement in our referendum which was NO to the new European Constitution Law.

Sounds to me, from your description, that you're studying bureaucratic procedure. That's perfectly fine if you're going to live and work within the EU political system (very much a post-Kantian post-modern political paradise). The problem there is that the very existence of the post-modern politics of the EU is predicated on the existence of a nation that views the world in terms of modern political orders--that is, a Hobbsian view of the relations between nations as 'the war of all against all'. The EU necessarily doesn't, but it relies in large measure on the US--which historically has taken a Hobbsian view--to enforce some sort of order and peace in the world. What keeps Putin out of the Baltics? Is it the EU and its vaunted economic prosperity or is it the threat of NATO (which means predominately American) nuclear forces? Read some Thucydides, read some Plato, read some Aristotle, read some Machiavelli, read some Clausewitz, etc, before you begin telling me you know about politics as such. If your study of politics doesn't include a large dose of political philosophy, you're being ripped off.

LIVE8....when the powerful leaders of the world were to have meetings to discuss the poverty in Africa and globally, when the ORGANISATION disrupted those meetings and the whole of Europe which indeed took a global realization of terrorism and the links within took the world politics back to safety and security within the countries starting by there own. Both Bush and Blair had a run for their money. Sorry to interupt the world is now watching both of you.

Unsure what you mean here. I was referencing the AQ in Iraq run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, not the London bombers (who were, I understand, not directly connected to Zaqawi's group).

I am a person who tries not to discriminate others as I believe everyone has rights. I do not judge as it is not my place to do so. I do believe in love and that people globally should start loving more but realistic in the fact that this does not always happen.

Well, I'd agree that everyone has rights. The question is, what are those rights derived from? For example, Western (i.e. European and American) political systems are based on the position that human beings have rights derivable from Nature, Nature's God or the Biblical God (cf. Locke, St. Thomas Aquinas, the American Federalist Papers, etc). Post-modernism rejects all of those as possible standards, hence the institutions built on them have become unstable--thus, human rights or political rights are arbitrary rather than natural. Western political life is ultimately predicated on the idea of Natural right. When you do away with that idea, you get exactly what Nietzsche predicted: the will to power becomes the only thing remotely resembling a principle. Nietzshe thinks this is true, but not necessarily good (hence the overman who will give humanity a sort of noble lie to believe in, to replace the rejection of these things)...but I digress. It would be great if people loved one another, but that's not going to happen because we're human beings (Federalist 52: 'If men were angels, there would be no need for government). We aren't perfect, and it's a danger to think that we're perfectable--just as it's a danger to think political order is perfectable (cf. what Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc did in the name of 'perfectly just political orders').

You also state that it's not your place to judge: that's foolish. If it's not your place to judge, you're less than human. Part of what makes human beings what they are is the faculty of reason--which entails judgment. If it's not your place to judge, you're implicitly saying it's not your place to hold opinions or have knowledge. Of course, I'm from Texas, and you think we're all idiots. Which means you've made a judgment. Which means you're either a) inconsistent and hypocritical b) prejudiced or c) trying to make a joke and failing miserably. I rather hope, for your sake, that it's the last.

Nice one today on R4, Dead Ringers..."My Fellow Amphibians...." etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/deadringers.shtml

sultan2075 wrote:As far as I'm concerned, any man who considers 10 percent of the population to be sinners by birth should be taken out and f*cking shot, not given charge of the world's largest nuclear arsenal.


What do they teach you Europeans about your own cultural past? Nothing at all? He's a Christian (look it up). That means he thinks everyone in the world is born a sinner, not 10% of the population. You can't even insult the guy properly!

You see? This is the problem I tried to point out to you folks earlier. Your utterly ill-informed prejudices get in the way of any sort of serious discussion. I guess that's why most replies in this forum consist of a few brief sentence fragments held together by ellipses.

No, I wouldn't say that. I simply don't like when political rhetoric takes the place of genuine debate and justification of policies.

Yes, well, ideally those things occur in the Congess and the 'public square,' as well as in cabinet meetings. He did announce policy for dealing with the aftermath of Katrina in his speech the other night. Some of it, I think, is a very good idea (the Urban Homsetead Act for low-income families, I think, is Very Good Thing), some of it not so much. I'd be curious if the more substantive parts of the address were covered in the European media. That said, I think you, Boudicca, are one of the only people in this thread who seems to have grokked to the fact that I'm not some sort of Bush fanboy. I'm just sickened when ill-informed prejudice, empty sloganeering and half-assed arguments pass for political debate and discussion (and, while I won't be making any friends by saying this, I think that's generally the tone around here when it comes to the USA and anything related to it).



It's true that there are shades of grey with most issues but with Bush and the Neo-Cons that he represents there just aren't. As timsinister said he's just a puppet. A very dangerous though not very credible one.

As for spelling, it's not an issue where debate is concerned IMHO, it's the quality of the argument.

I'm glad that we have you here to tell us the truth about the nature of things. Thanks, Lucretius.

An argument that isn't expressed clearly isn't terribly effective--and most (but not necessarily all) of the time, it's not a good argument to begin with. Spell correctly if you want to be taken seriously in writing. That's the way of the world, get used to it. No one is going to hire you, for example--regardless of your qualifications for a given job--if your cover letter begins 'I'm am havening of an interesting for job.' Punctuation is also a wonderful, subtle, sublime and mysterious thing.


About politics your suspicion is incorrect as that is exactly the course I have laid out at my feet in the coming winter months. Although my challenge is doing the political course in the language of the country I am now living in and because of the fact that I am a foreigner to translate from Dutch to English, it is indeed a challenge to enrich my mind. You see I will be debating anything I feel needs to be brought to attention with the fifty signatures of people believing in what I am doing or wanting to take to The Hague parliament. I am now referring to a diplomatic system where regardless of religion the people want to live in harmony with each other respecting each other's beliefs and cultures so that the generations to follow are much less prejudice towards each other. The Netherlands in regards to the EU made a very loud and clear statement in our referendum which was NO to the new European Constitution Law.

Sounds to me, from your description, that you're studying bureaucratic procedure. That's perfectly fine if you're going to live and work within the EU political system (very much a post-Kantian post-modern political paradise). The problem there is that the very existence of the post-modern politics of the EU is predicated on the existence of a nation that views the world in terms of modern political orders--that is, a Hobbsian view of the relations between nations as 'the war of all against all'. The EU necessarily doesn't, but it relies in large measure on the US--which historically has taken a Hobbsian view--to enforce some sort of order and peace in the world. What keeps Putin out of the Baltics? Is it the EU and its vaunted economic prosperity or is it the threat of NATO (which means predominately American) nuclear forces? Read some Thucydides, read some Plato, read some Aristotle, read some Machiavelli, read some Clausewitz, etc, before you begin telling me you know about politics as such. If your study of politics doesn't include a large dose of political philosophy, you're being ripped off.

LIVE8....when the powerful leaders of the world were to have meetings to discuss the poverty in Africa and globally, when the ORGANISATION disrupted those meetings and the whole of Europe which indeed took a global realization of terrorism and the links within took the world politics back to safety and security within the countries starting by there own. Both Bush and Blair had a run for their money. Sorry to interupt the world is now watching both of you.

Unsure what you mean here. I was referencing the AQ in Iraq run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, not the London bombers (who were, I understand, not directly connected to Zaqawi's group).

I am a person who tries not to discriminate others as I believe everyone has rights. I do not judge as it is not my place to do so. I do believe in love and that people globally should start loving more but realistic in the fact that this does not always happen.

Well, I'd agree that everyone has rights. The question is, what are those rights derived from? For example, Western (i.e. European and American) political systems are based on the position that human beings have rights derivable from Nature, Nature's God or the Biblical God (cf. Locke, St. Thomas Aquinas, the American Federalist Papers, etc). Post-modernism rejects all of those as possible standards, hence the institutions built on them have become unstable--thus, human rights or political rights are arbitrary rather than natural. Western political life is ultimately predicated on the idea of Natural right. When you do away with that idea, you get exactly what Nietzsche predicted: the will to power becomes the only thing remotely resembling a principle. Nietzshe thinks this is true, but not necessarily good (hence the overman who will give humanity a sort of noble lie to believe in, to replace the rejection of these things)...but I digress. It would be great if people loved one another, but that's not going to happen because we're human beings (Federalist 52: 'If men were angels, there would be no need for government). We aren't perfect, and it's a danger to think that we're perfectable--just as it's a danger to think political order is perfectable (cf. what Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc did in the name of 'perfectly just political orders').

You also state that it's not your place to judge: that's foolish. If it's not your place to judge, you're less than human. Part of what makes human beings what they are is the faculty of reason--which entails judgment. If it's not your place to judge, you're implicitly saying it's not your place to hold opinions or have knowledge. Of course, I'm from Texas, and you think we're all idiots. Which means you've made a judgment. Which means you're either a) inconsistent and hypocritical b) prejudiced or c) trying to make a joke and failing miserably. I rather hope, for your sake, that it's the last.

Do I need a note to go to the bathroom at the UN? Will it be refused if my spelling is in upper and lower case?