Who is editing wikipedia?

a sort of new Literature-

immatured

controlled( by all criminals

Spread the air with informations
and distort not the reality

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Mao and Lenin were no Hitlers. Hell, for some of you they were no George Bushes!

Do you enjoy debating people that you made up for the purpose? Have you ever actually seen anyone here say that Mao and Lenin were better than George Bush?

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You can sky-write your ridiculous comments in letters the size of a house and I would not understand them any better.

Pasting the dictionary definition of "fair" doesn't respond to my question (in other than a glib way).

No word is obscene unto itself. It is always the use and context that matters.

You indicated that America lost it's "fair" share of lives in WWII. Fair based on what? The extent of it's interests? The measure of it contribution to the cause of the war?

I said..

Quote:

WW2 is the ONE war that Americans actually lost a fair number of soldiers

Since "use and context" matter perhaps you should stick with my use and context and not some fictional use that you want to argue against. Your attempt to change what I said to "It's fair share" is nothing but an attempt to drastically change the meaning of what I actually said. You need only substitute the correct meaning for the word "fair" to understand what I said.

Quote:

Your comment also implies that America has lost other than its "fair" share of lives in other wars. I'm betting dollars to donuts that you don't believe America has lost more than it's "fair" share of lives in other wars.If this is so then you are implying America did not lose it's "fair" share of lives in WWI, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq etc.

Since I never said the word "share" I don't see how you can even make your argument.

Quote:

If it is not so than we agree and why are you giving me grief?

Because you are arguing about something I never said, you deserve grief. If you keep it up you deserve more than grief, you deserve ridicule. (Adjectives only modify nouns in the sentence they are in. They don't modify words not used in the paragraph or words not used on the page.)

Quote:

What was America's "fair" share of lost lives in WWI? Considering that our country was not under attack and that we gained very little in comparison to the Brits and French by defeating The Axis, we should have "fairly" lost more lives?

I never said anything about "fair share".

Quote:

What is it with you folks?

"America has done some horrible things too!"

"America isn't perfect you know!"

"America isn't as great as you think it is!"

Do you tell your brother the same thing about your mother?

"Mom isn't perfect you know!

"Mom has done some lousy things too you know!"

It would be OK if you folks applied the same harsh light equally to all nations. In fact if you did, America would still come out ahead. But...you don't.

Cuba ain't so bad and neither is Hugo Chavez. Mao and Lenin were no Hitlers. Hell, for some of you they were no George Bushes!

That's a lovely strawman. Is your entire argument going to be against things I have never said?

Quote:

Obviously America is not perfect, and yes it has things of which it should be ashamed, but why is it so hard for you to give credit where credit is due?

Funny, you attacked me for saying almost the exact same thing you just said. I said it this way.

Quote:

Yes, that is true to some extent. But any time a country rationalizes its actions based on the premise that it can do no wrong it can't be too far from doing wrong.

and this

Quote:

The US has warts. Yes, it is better than some countries but it isn't somehow the best country that has ever been.

Quote:

Please don't give me the BS that is people like you, pointing America's problems that keeps it great. You like to point out it's problems. Admit it.

You just pointed to the fact that the US has things it should be ashamed of. Does that mean you like to point out the US's problems? I on more than one occassion agreed that the US is better as a superpower than many countries might be. But it seems you prefer to play "make believe" instead of dealing with reality.

Quote:

Why else would Foofie not simply accept your vague argument about your nationality?

There wasn't anything vague about it. It is simple grammar. "We" has a meaning that can't really be misconstrued and is hardly vague.

Quote:

Why can't you simply state you are American? While you're at it you might also say you are proud of it, but I suspect that's not the case at all

I see you absolutely refuse to discuss what I have said and instead want to make up an argument so you have something to argue against. Meanwhile as you went off on your tangent about what I didn't say you failed to discuss what YOU said in defense of a premise that you don't seem to even agree with.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

perhaps you should stick with my use and context and not some fictional use that you want to argue against.

parados wrote:

Is your entire argument going to be against things I have never said?

parados wrote:

I see you absolutely refuse to discuss what I have said and instead want to make up an argument so you have something to argue against.

It's what Finn does.. it's his spiel. It's what he needs to do to be able to keep sneering at those stupid, venal liberals. If they dont show up, he'll just make them up.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Mao and Lenin were better than George Bush

OMGWTF?!

0 Replies

Well, it seems McG was willing to say it.

0 Replies

Now what if another country was "The One Superpower In the World" today? How would another superpower act correctly, based on the criticisms against the U.S.? Would this hypothetical other superpower act against its own interests? Would it share its wealth with the developing nations? What would it do that would avoid criticism?

O.K., now that we're back in reality, the fact is that the U.S. is the world's one superpower. It acts in behalf of its own and its allies interests. Call it a club. It's not a restricted club; anyone can join. Just accept the rules of democracy.

Naturally, there are people that don't like the agenda of the club. And, they might not therefore like the U.S. Sorry, but the agenda of the club are not changing.

Naturally the U.S. does have a lot of power in the club. Well, it is the biggest club member; it is the wealthiest club member; it is the strongest militarily (club member). That's how clubs work. Or, perhaps, even nations work that way too.

I think those that criticize the U.S. have a problem with accepting the reality of how clubs/nations/organizations work. Criticize as much as you all want to criticize; it does not change how the world works. And, it was working that way, way before the current One Superpower in the World came into existence. And if one has a knowledge of history, most of the world's developing nations got its "growth" stunted from something called Colonialism (from those "old" nations in Europe) or wars that had nothing to do with the U.S.

How come we don't hear an historical perspective of how the world wound up with "haves and have nots"? The U.S., as the world's one superpower, got its position in a world that is still lopsided, in many ways, due to the antics of Europe in its heyday. Anyone interested in criticizing Europe? Don't like to pick on little guys?

0 Replies

If you want to discuss or criticize other countries or their policies, there are forums for that Foofie. This happens to be a forum dedicated solely to American politics....so, if you don't want to hear criticisms of your beloved country, or prefer to be ignorant of certain elements this idealistic utopian America you've created in your mind, then I suggest that you participate elsewhere. Repeatedly seeking justification to invoke meaningless ad hominem into your discussions simply demonstrate your continued willingness to be blind and irrelevent.

0 Replies

Then I suggest you participate elsewhere candi...whatever Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

Then I suggest you participate elsewhere candi...whatever

I am here willing to discuss American politics--good, bad or ugly.

Foofie has repeatedly requested the nationality of members participating in discussions with him/her be revealed when it is not germane to the discussion other than, as others have suggested, to rebut with ad hominem laden responses, or to attempt to discredit her interlocutor's argument by virtue of their physical origin.

Example:

Foofie wrote:

You mean I'm debating with someone that is not a U.S. citizen? Then the jokes on me. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Link to thread.

So, unless Foofie is your nom de plume, or you are their alter ego, go away. This response was addressed specifically to Foofie. I am merely echoing the sentiments expressed by other members of either stripe with respect to relevence on these matters.

0 Replies

Hmm, let me decide, go away, nope.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

If you want to discuss or criticize other countries or their policies, there are forums for that Foofie. This happens to be a forum dedicated solely to American politics....so, if you don't want to hear criticisms of your beloved country, or prefer to be ignorant of certain elements this idealistic utopian America you've created in your mind, then I suggest that you participate elsewhere. Repeatedly seeking justification to invoke meaningless ad hominem into your discussions simply demonstrate your continued willingness to be blind and irrelevent.

When did I make an ad hominem comment. Never. Don't make false accusations.

Also, here is the forum description:

"Join us in lively political debate of the day. Democrats, republicans, independents, conservatives, liberals, centrists discuss government in action and campaign for favored changes in government."

The inference is that the people who will be discussing politics are one of the above. Those in other countries are only joining a forum that I believe was intended for the U.S. voting public. But, let's not make this a restricted forum. However, since people in other countries can't be voting Democrats, Republicans, etc., at least we U.S. citizens should know what manner of political person we might be engaging in discussion.

And, my earlier point was ignored:

I think those that criticize the U.S. have a problem with accepting the reality of how clubs/nations/organizations work. Criticize as much as you all want to criticize; it does not change how the world works. And, it was working that way, way before the current One Superpower in the World came into existence. And if one has a knowledge of history, most of the world's developing nations got its "growth" stunted from something called Colonialism (from those "old" nations in Europe) or wars that had nothing to do with the U.S.

How come we don't hear an historical perspective of how the world wound up with "haves and have nots"? The U.S., as the world's one superpower, got its position in a world that is still lopsided, in many ways, due to the antics of Europe in its heyday. Anyone interested in criticizing Europe? Don't like to pick on little guys?

The inference is made, by those that criticize the U.S., that the U.S. has abused its power on the world stage. Well, that stage was "set" by the history of the European Colonial powers. I understand this is not a forum for discussing other countries; however, it was the colonialism of Europe that gave the U.S. such a needy world of developing nations that results in current criticism of the U.S.

Why doesn't anyone want to go back to "cause and effect"? It's like talking about the Palestinian/Israel situation without asking the question: Why are there so many Jews in Israel? Did it have anything to do with those "displaced persons" in Europe after the Holocaust? Cause and effect makes for intelligent analysis; otherwise, one could become suspect of just having a perspective to promulgate and the heck with "intellectual honesty."

0 Replies

Quote:

And, my earlier point was ignored:

I think those that criticize the U.S. have a problem with accepting the reality of how clubs/nations/organizations work. Criticize as much as you all want to criticize; it does not change how the world works.

i think this point was probably ignored because there aren't many people here that could believe it.

history has countless records of criticism changing the world. in the long run, it tends to lead to revolution. exactly what qualifies as "change" in your book? if you turn the news on, wouldn't you say that criticism is at the very core of all politics? no? it's all action in the senate, is it? damn, where's jerry bruckheimer? "c-span: the movie" is going to be the blockbuster of the year!

go ahead and remove criticism from the equation, this place would be a british colony...

0 Replies

Have I been missing the cogent rebuttles to my, and a few other's of similar, pro-U.S. positions? I read a litany of things the U.S. is accused of, from an anti-U.S. position. All seemingly reflecting the position that the U.S. should operate on a moral code that the rest of the world doesn't have to abide by (or at least be questioned).

I do hope the draft is reinstituted, and the next generation of U.S. citizens learns that for the privilege of living in the U.S. one must give some of his/her youthful time. I even believe in a draft for women.

In that way, U.S. citizens would then have earned the right to criticize the politics of the country they served. Otherwise, I see a big disparity between those that never serve the U.S. and criticize the U.S., and those that do serve the U.S. and then might choose to criticize the U.S.

Like when Vietnam Vets criticized the war in Vietnam, it meant more than when a college student criticized that war. The veteran earned the right to criticize the war, the student was possibly just being self-serving in his criticism.

Believing that there are criticisms to be made about the U.S. does not give one the right to not be a model citizen of the U.S. So, if there was a draft, one would serve the country, regardless of any criticisms of the country. By the way, for those that wouldn't want to be a soldier, there are other branches of the military. But it would be nice to know that those that criticize the U.S. will be earning the right to criticize the U.S.

As of now, so much anti-U.S. criticism is the proverbial "free lunch." And, we all know the day of the free lunch has been over for a long time (there was a time when buying a beer in a saloon got a ham sandwich; thus, the expression, a free lunch).

0 Replies

the continent-sized logical error you're making foof, is the division of everything into pro-u.s. and anti-u.s.

suppose that pro u.s. includes being in favor of "everything that makes this country great." well, i'm NOT making the case that criticism is what makes this country great, but i am saying that when the u.s. starts to lose what it stands for, that someone has to say something. obviously you disagree. obviously to you, it's more important to "count our blessings" no matter what wrongs are done, while we become half the nation we used to be.

i don't agree with you on that. if america loses her way, the patriotic thing (unless patriotism is the refuge of the scoundrel, which i'm inclined to believe, so let's throw the term out and go back to "right thing to do") is to mention it and insist we "stay the course." not the course of falling headlong into a quest for empire and self-destruction, but the course of liberty we claimed to be on all along.

like it or not foofie, liberty includes and requires freedom of speech, not the just freedom to say how great things are when they're not. naturally, i wouldn't deny you your right to insist we need to remain respectful. but if we're losing the very thing we respect, i am glad we still have a few liberties left to point it out, if tasers, rubber bullets, and bulldozers stand in the way- i don't think it's patriotic to delude ourselves.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

the continent-sized logical error you're making foof, is the division of everything into pro-u.s. and anti-u.s.

suppose that pro u.s. includes being in favor of "everything that makes this country great." well, i'm NOT making the case that criticism is what makes this country great, but i am saying that when the u.s. starts to lose what it stands for, that someone has to say something. obviously you disagree. obviously to you, it's more important to "count our blessings" no matter what wrongs are done, while we become half the nation we used to be.

i don't agree with you on that. if america loses her way, the patriotic thing (unless patriotism is the refuge of the scoundrel, which i'm inclined to believe, so let's throw the term out and go back to "right thing to do") is to mention it and insist we "stay the course." not the course of falling headlong into a quest for empire and self-destruction, but the course of liberty we claimed to be on all along.

like it or not foofie, liberty includes and requires freedom of speech, not the just freedom to say how great things are when they're not. naturally, i wouldn't deny you your right to insist we need to remain respectful. but if we're losing the very thing we respect, i am glad we still have a few liberties left to point it out, if tasers, rubber bullets, and bulldozers stand in the way- i don't think it's patriotic to delude ourselves.

Reinstititute the draft for men and women (before college), and then we'll have citizens that understand what they are part of. Otherwise, it's a free lunch for too many citizens. Just a draft; no one claims that means a war; Elvis was drafted into a peacetime Army.

0 Replies

as for "free lunch," i think my position on the war is traditional conservatism. if the iraqi people won't take freedom for themselves and handle their affairs, the "free lunch" of troops and leadership isn't something we can force them to accept either.

i think it's the "free lunch" of business opportunity that politicians are taking for themselves, by all means, let's stop this entitlement they feel to money from unnecessary defense contracts, taxpayers funding the war, not to mention the obvious benefits of "securing the oil" from terrorists. why do politicians get the free lunch of corporate handouts, when they should be representing our interests or be out of the job? wouldn't that make the patriotic act voting just a little more meaningful?

and a draft, a draft is a "free lunch" for poor leaders. as things are, we're working together in a very capitalist way, having people sign up to work for the country's freedom, in return they reap the benefits of this, both for freedom and (if they live to spend it) monetarily.

yet we have a very socialist armed forces as it is. the army has a budget to work with, but up at the top it can always ask for more weapons, more time, it doesn't have to "buy" it. if you want to make it more socialist, by all means, force people to sign up. or do like the communists in china and just sign everyone in the country on for n years, that IS what all the communist countries do.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

as for "free lunch," i think my position on the war is traditional conservatism. if the iraqi people won't take freedom for themselves and handle their affairs, the "free lunch" of troops and leadership isn't something we can force them to accept either.

i think it's the "free lunch" of business opportunity that politicians are taking for themselves, by all means, let's stop this entitlement they feel to money from unnecessary defense contracts, taxpayers funding the war, not to mention the obvious benefits of "securing the oil" from terrorists. why do politicians get the free lunch of corporate handouts, when they should be representing our interests or be out of the job? wouldn't that make the patriotic act voting just a little more meaningful?

and a draft, a draft is a "free lunch" for poor leaders. as things are, we're working together in a very capitalist way, having people sign up to work for the country's freedom, in return they reap the benefits of this, both for freedom and (if they live to spend it) monetarily.

yet we have a very socialist armed forces as it is. the army has a budget to work with, but up at the top it can always ask for more weapons, more time, it doesn't have to "buy" it. if you want to make it more socialist, by all means, force people to sign up. or do like the communists in china and just sign everyone in the country on for n years, that IS what all the communist countries do.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. I'm talking about citizens, and I believe you're talking about the system. I'm talking about concepts of gratitude and humility. I am not talking about whether the system is working "correctly," since that word "correctly" can have a different definition, based on who one asks.

I've already made my point earlier, regarding my preference for a reinstitution of a universal draft.

0 Replies

Well Foofie.. you ignored where I pointed out your analogy was false.
You ignored where SEVERAL people pointed out that the US is not perfect nor should anyone expect it to be.

Now you claim..

Quote:

I'm talking about concepts of gratitude and humility.

I don't think that humility involves going around demanding everyone believe that you live in the best country and others need to accept that.

As for gratitude for the sacrifice of others. The worst kind of gratitude is to ignore the principles they fought for. Freedom does not mean abject submission to the present government if we disagree with it.

foofie wrote:

I see a big disparity between those that never serve the U.S. and criticize the U.S., and those that do serve the U.S. and then might choose to criticize the U.S.

Since we are talking gratitude which soldiers do you think fought so only veterans could criticize the government.

0 Replies

....and what end do you feel a mandatory draft meets?

I know I know....gratitude and humility.

I'd just like to hear how you explain how those things naturally follow from a universal draft.

0 Replies

Who is editing wikipedia?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know