1
   

Understanding America and the Bush administration

 
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 04:53 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Exactly what I stated above. (Since you quoted it already, there's no need to repeat that, I think.)


How does my quote relate to the ME and the US? What are the neo-nazi's trying to do with such a quote? I might be a little dense so please explain how this all fits into what I said.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Feb, 2005 10:01 pm
blatham wrote:
Brandon

Please start a thread for your discussion, it doesn't belong here.

First of all, my post was absolutely on your topic:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Apparently the author is too dense to see that most of what we Americans do is simply for purposes of self-preservation. Based on those quotations, this book is presented in a scholarly manner, but shows an utter lack of understanding.


and it was cicerone imposter who started talking about Iraq. I am now responding to his posts.

Secondly, if you present one view of American foreign policy, I am entitled to present another. If you think that you will succeed in impugning my country's foreign policy and motivations with no defense from me, you are mistaken. Go find another message board.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 03:58 am
Note: an extended series of posts, not germane to this topic's purpose, will be moved to another thread for continuation of those discussions.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 07:29 am
blatham wrote:
Note: an extended series of posts, not germane to this topic's purpose, will be moved to another thread for continuation of those discussions.

I'm sure you'd love to be able to look down at America's foreign policy and ascribe base and stupid motives, yet forbid anyone to present alternate theories, but you don't have that right. However, if you insist, I will simply reiterate my original post, which is certainly on topic:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Apparently the author is too dense to see that most of what we Americans do is simply for purposes of self-preservation. Based on those quotations, this book is presented in a scholarly manner, but shows an utter lack of understanding.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 10:12 am
Baldi:
Quote:
How does my quote relate to the ME and the US? What are the neo-nazi's trying to do with such a quote? I might be a little dense so please explain how this all fits into what I said.


You don't see the irony that you unintentionally champion the same motto as the Neo-Nazi's?

I think it's somewhat telling, myself.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 03:54 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldi:
Quote:
How does my quote relate to the ME and the US? What are the neo-nazi's trying to do with such a quote? I might be a little dense so please explain how this all fits into what I said.


You don't see the irony that you unintentionally champion the same motto as the Neo-Nazi's?

I think it's somewhat telling, myself.

Cycloptichorn


I'll try and keep calm about this, and request that you answer the original intent of what my post was.

How can you claim the US must answer for it's past but the people of the ME don't have to answer for theirs?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 04:00 pm
The history of the ME is so convoluted, nobody can determine who to give credit or fault for their current situation.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 04:00 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Baldi:
Quote:
How does my quote relate to the ME and the US? What are the neo-nazi's trying to do with such a quote? I might be a little dense so please explain how this all fits into what I said.


You don't see the irony that you unintentionally champion the same motto as the Neo-Nazi's?

I think it's somewhat telling, myself.

Cycloptichorn


So is there irony in the fact that we buddhists continue using a symbol that resembles a nazi swastika?

Is there no room in the liberal agenda for similar objects/phrases to be used with different ideologies?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 04:14 pm
The Buddist Jumonji certainly should not to be confused with a Swastika - the Nazi swastica (the word is derived from the Sanskrit svastika).

In German, "swastica" was never used - the term was (and still is) "Hakenkreuz" ('hooked cross').
Deceitful translators changed "Hakenkreuz" to "swastika".
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Feb, 2005 08:34 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
blatham wrote:
Note: an extended series of posts, not germane to this topic's purpose, will be moved to another thread for continuation of those discussions.

I'm sure you'd love to be able to look down at America's foreign policy and ascribe base and stupid motives, yet forbid anyone to present alternate theories, but you don't have that right. However, if you insist, I will simply reiterate my original post, which is certainly on topic:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Apparently the author is too dense to see that most of what we Americans do is simply for purposes of self-preservation. Based on those quotations, this book is presented in a scholarly manner, but shows an utter lack of understanding.


Actually, I asked that this post of yours remain included. But everything after that to be moved.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 10:40 am
Taps. Floral arrangement.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 11:02 am
blatham, I think the problem you had on this topic stems from the title; it's too general. IMHO, if you had included the author's name in the title, it would have limited the divergence from your main theme. Just a thought, pal.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Mar, 2005 12:02 pm
ci

Well, I wish it would be such a simple matter to fix. I'd hoped I could convince a few people to pick this book up and read it and perhaps have some serious address to the ideas in it.

The fundamental reason that wish won't come to fruition is precisely because of those aspects of American national identity that the author discusses. I knew going in that this would be the impediment (I've tried a similar discussion a few times before) but Lieven's book is so worthwhile that I thought I should try once again. Open political-content forums such as this one, in the present climate in America, are pretty much predictable, and predictably unvaluable.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 09:02 am
Bernie,

In effect you are saying that the book is so good and insightful and the country so sick and distorted by its unique maladies that rational discussion about the matter is impossible. Don't you fear that this may be a bit of a rationalization on your part?

I have read your excerpts and posts here, and even have been tempted a few times to respond to them. However, I was so impressed by the self-serving and selective reporting of fact and opinion by the author and the sadly typical use of unsupported taxonomies that intrinsically make his rather odd points, that I gave the effort up as hopeless. For example in your first quote (as I recall it) the author notes what he regards as the salient characteristics of American nationalism - all carefully selected to make his point. Nowhere does he note the real and quite obviously unique and most significant feature of American nationalism - that, until recently, it was unique in the world in that one from anywhere or any culture could choose to become an American. The melting pot and synthesis of cultures is undeniably the salient characteristic of our culture and its manifestations, including nationalist feelings. It is difficult to take seriously any argument that leaves out consideration of such points, and you shouldn't be surprised that no one took the material seriously.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2005 10:33 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Yes, "real danger." Please provide facts and support for those "real dangers." Most are imagined by people like you. I fear crossing the street at home more than I ever did about Saddam's WMDs.


Same here Cicerone..... that and another inside job on the U.S. like 9-11.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2005 06:51 am
Magginkat????

Is that really you? (waving wildly!!!!!)

Blatham, I was getting into it if you want to continue...
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2005 08:12 am
squinney wrote:
Magginkat????

Is that really you? (waving wildly!!!!!)

quote]

Hi Squinney..... Yep, I wandered in here a week or so ago to see if there were any familiar names and found quite a few. Tickled pink to see you!
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2005 03:26 pm
Hi Maggie! <onmymarc> Saw your name when I was scanning the political threads and said "yaayy"!

Here are two links for the last rainforest thread

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45535&highlight=

and the new thread

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=46804&highlight=

At the beginning of each thread, you'll see an explanation regarding our efforts on behalf of the rainforest.

Graet seeing you here!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2005 03:35 pm
"Graet" seeing you too, Stradee. Wink
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2005 03:36 pm
oops, sorry for spammin' your topic, bernie.

Interesting subject though. Nationalism? I'm not sure what that means, but George makes a few good points regarding what America and Americans all about.

Interesting topic
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2019 at 09:06:52