Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
We have proven ourselves to be the most reprehensible nation on Earth?
How so?
More reprehensible than North Korea that starves its people to fund its military?
More reprehensible than The Sudan that is engaged in the systematic elimination of a segment of its population?
More reprehensible than Haiti where chaos and corruption reign?
More reprehensible than Iran where a theocracy rules the land with an iron fist and the president calls for wiping another sovereign nation off of the map?
More reprehensible than Zimbabwe, Ubekistan, Burma (Myanmar), Russia, China, or Yemen?
How so?[/color]
In Iraq we have created all the conditions you describe above. We have created a system in Iraq that is causing widespead suffering. We have caused starvation, chaos and corruption. We have created "the systematic elimination of a segment of its population". Indeed, we are more reprehensible.
I'm sorry but debating you is like debating a child or an idiot. I've had enough.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:If you are an American, why do you feel it necessary to find fault with someone praising your country?
why should i not criticize absurd statements? D'Souza's ode to supposed American material abundance has as much substance as a Potemkin village. however, i do acknowledge his refutation of a recent claim by Ann Coulter of a "correlation [that exists] between poor student achievement and time spent in U.S. public schools" with this declaration:
Quote:Every child is given an education, and most have the chance to go on to college.
What's so great about America?
--------------------------------------------
The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA. (1)
Thomas wrote:I liked this paragraph.
Fedral, quoting Dinesh D'Souza wrote:The immigrant cannot help noticing that America is a country where the poor live comparatively well. This fact was dramatized in the 1980s, when CBS television broadcast an anti-Reagan documentary, "People Like Us," which was intended to show the miseries of the poor during an American recession. The Soviet Union also broadcast the documentary, with the intention of embarrassing the Reagan administration. But it had the opposite effect. Ordinary people across the Soviet Union saw that the poorest Americans had television sets and cars. They arrived at the same conclusion that I witnessed in a friend of mine from Bombay who has been trying unsuccessfully to move to the United States for nearly a decade. I asked him, "Why are you so eager to come to America?" He replied, "Because I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."
I can also confirm the effect of the documentary on Russian people. Victor Jerofiev, a Russian author and former dissident, mentioned it in an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, where I read it about 10 years ago.
good point, Thomas. but the greatness of America shown in this paragraph in my view is not the fact that poor people can become overweight, but that there's freedom of speech to allow critical documentaries to be shown--the same freedom i exercise in nitpicking this article. Thomas, when you came to Chicago for the a2k meeting, you ate at a few restaurants. do you recall anyone addressing the waiter as "Sir"?
I believe he means 'ma'am,' or the like. The point is, terms of respect, such as 'ma'am,' 'sir,' or 'you there, jerkface!' aren't reserved specifically for people of a recognized higher class or members of particular rungs of the social ladder.
Yes indeed - damned spellchecker! I should no more blindly rely on it than I should rely on Tony Snow to tell me what to believe.
Yeah, America has a lot wrong with it. But we still abide by the principles of freedom and justice that the nation was founded on. Perhaps not to the letter, and certainly not as well as many people, myself included, would like, but it's still a respectable job. There is always room for improvement, and I believe that such improvement is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Nevertheless, America is, quite possibly, one of the most successful and incredible nations in the history of the entire world. And that's a fact as far as I'm concerned.
And come on guys, there's no need to turn this into a conservative vs liberal deal, is there?
No, except to the extent that there is this interesting coincidence that it is only liberals on this thread who either find the sins of America outweighing the virtues, or that America has only sins and no virtues.
This obsession with calling a waiter "sir!"
If you grew up in or spent anytime in the South you would realize that the use of "Sir," and "Mame" is not reserved, by a large number of folk in this country, for people of perceived higher social status.
An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."
1) His words were posted to a thread dedicated to honoring America on Independence Day.
Money also frees up time for family life, community involvement, and spiritual pursuits, and so provides moral as well as material gains.
America's founders were religious men. They believed that political legitimacy derives from God.
Capitalism gives America a this-worldly focus that allows death and the afterlife to recede from everyday view.
Between cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating war junkies
Conservative America celebrated July 4 as a country at war; the July 7 anniversary here reveals a very different attitude
Timothy Garton Ash in Stanford
Thursday July 6, 2006
The Guardian
Having just returned to America after a year's absence, I'm pondering this question: Why is it that the United States, which has not suffered a major terrorist attack at home for more than four years, thinks it's at war, while the United Kingdom, which was hit by a major terrorist attack just a year ago, does not?
The evocation of war is omnipresent in the US. Turn on Fox News and you find a war veteran recounting his experiences on Hill 805 in Vietnam. At one point he says: "I had the privilege of storming the machine gun". The privilege. Walk into the Stanford University bookstore and you find a special display marked "Salute Our Heroes. 20% Off Select Patriotic Titles". Imagine that in your local Waterstone's.
...
Now, one may flatly disagree with the whole analysis. One may regard the statement "you're winning this war" (in Iraq) as something close to a claim that black is white. One may see the attack on the New York Times as a cynical diversion from the Bush administration's many problems, not least in Iraq. But one also has to understand that these statements reflect something real and deep in the conservative part of US political culture. True or false, right or wrong, this is how conservative America has chosen to understand the challenge of September 11 2001 and to respond to it. At some level, this is where it feels most comfortable: in the simple story of a fight between good guys and bad guys, calling on old-fashioned virtues of courage and honour.
[or in other words, simpletons]
[continued at,]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1813442,00.html
The American view is that the rich guy may have more money, but he isn't in any fundamental sense better than you are.
NickFun wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
We have proven ourselves to be the most reprehensible nation on Earth?
How so?
More reprehensible than North Korea that starves its people to fund its military?
More reprehensible than The Sudan that is engaged in the systematic elimination of a segment of its population?
More reprehensible than Haiti where chaos and corruption reign?
More reprehensible than Iran where a theocracy rules the land with an iron fist and the president calls for wiping another sovereign nation off of the map?
More reprehensible than Zimbabwe, Ubekistan, Burma (Myanmar), Russia, China, or Yemen?
How so?[/color]
In Iraq we have created all the conditions you describe above. We have created a system in Iraq that is causing widespead suffering. We have caused starvation, chaos and corruption. We have created "the systematic elimination of a segment of its population". Indeed, we are more reprehensible.
I'm sorry but debating you is like debating a child or an idiot. I've had enough.
Would anyone else care to comment on Flynn's observation?
Quote:This obsession with calling a waiter "sir!"
If you grew up in or spent anytime in the South you would realize that the use of "Sir," and "Mame" is not reserved, by a large number of folk in this country, for people of perceived higher social status.
fyi, i never lived in the south, unless 6 months in cincinnati counts. on the other hand, i attended my share of parochial school, where every lay teacher was addressed as "sir" or "ma'am," but never once did i hear a teacher address a student as "sir." waiters on occasion have addressed me as "sir," which didn't strike me as an admission of lower social status, but rather as an expression of respect & appreciation for a customer. no doubt, you prefer "hey you, whaddaya want?" anyway, if i repeatedly bring up a point until some addresses it, it becomes an "obsession?"
6 decades in Cincinnati doesn't count, for Cincinnati is not part of the South. The environment within a parochial school, is not similar to that of the South.
Your argument about waiters using Sir or Ma'am is pointless. It is not an either or issue and I hardly prefer a waiter be rude. What nonsense.
Whether it is truly an obsession only you know but you seem to place an inordinate amount of importance in this one observation made by D'Sousa, which your limited to exposure to America makes you unqualified to comment upon. Why not do yourself a favor and drop the subject?
incidentally, D'Souza may have been talking about treating social inferiors with respect, whereas i was specifically questioning his claim that waiters are addressed in a particular way; nor did D'Souza restrict his remarks to the South, so your geographic distinction is irrelevant.
More nonsense. He said this is the only country in which he has been where people will call someone (who elsewhere is assumed to be a social inferior) sir or ma'am. Is it required that this be done in every nook and cranny of the country for it to be a valid statement? Is it required of D'Souza to point to this or that region? The fact remains that a large section of the country does precisely what D'Souza claims. His statement is valid with or without regional attribution.
i suppose you are familiar with southern custom: is labeling me a "troll" another example of it?
a definition of troll i found in answers.com reads thus:
Quote:An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."
i doubt you can show that i "regularly" post flames or personal attacks. i have close to 9000 posts, so surely i would have been suspended for a TOS violation by now if that were the case. so produce some examples of specious arguments i've posted, or retract the "troll" accusation.
My are you thin skinned. I described your action as trolling and not you as a troll. Again, haunting a thread begun to celebrate America on Independence Day and caterwauling about whether or not anyone in America calls a waiter sir is a trolling activity. You are not very familiar to me in the roster of A2Kers and so I therefore assume you are not actually a troll, but that certainly doesn't mean you cannot be guilty of troll-like antics.
Quote:1) His words were posted to a thread dedicated to honoring America on Independence Day.
so, is this the right's version of "infallibility?" if a conservative writes a piece praising the US on the 4th of July, no one is allowed to criticize anything in it?
You are allowed to do very many things in this world that are pointless and in bad form, and A2K certainly doesn't impose any greater restrictions in this forum than are imposed in the world at large. Why you felt the need to criticize the quote is interesting. Why did you? That the best you could come up with was the erroneous argument that Americans don't call waiters "sir," makes your compulsion to criticize the piece that much more interesting. (Note this is something of a compliment to you because I am assuming all of your criticisms rendered on A2K are not as flimsy as this one, but I could be wrong.)
but for good measure, here's two more chances for you to demonstrate that i'm a troll.
Quote:Money also frees up time for family life, community involvement, and spiritual pursuits, and so provides moral as well as material gains.
this is an extremely self-serving statement on the part of an affluent individual.
Is it? How so? Money doesn't free up time for family life and spiritual pursuits? Family life and spiritual pursuits cannot provide moral gain? I doubt you can show in either this piece or anything else written by the man that he believes that people without money cannot have a positive family life or pursue the spiritual. His point, obviously, is that money can make it easier to do these things. If it can't, why do so many liberals want to get more of it in the hands of the poor? They are not starving, and they are not wanting of material goods other poor people in the world would consider to be the possessions of the well-off, so why do they need more money?
D'Souza talks about the founders thus:
Quote:And your point is?America's founders were religious men. They believed that political legitimacy derives from God.
Are you arguing that D'Souza is suggesting that the Founders were fundamentalist Christians. Are you suggesting that they were?
This seems to be the extent of your tortured logic:
If the Founders were religious men as D'Souza claims, they would hold the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God and therefore they would have scorned the accumulation of wealth.
Since we know that they did not scorn the accumulation of wealth, should we assume, by your logic, that they were not religious men? We also know that the Founders were, in general, religious or spiritual men (depending upon your preferred choice of words) and so it seems that we are forced by your logic to conclude that they were hypocrites.
More of interest, do you believe that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven? If you you do, this might explain why you have a problem with D'Souza's contention that money can help us accumulate spiritual as well as material wealth. But then again we circle back to the question of why you want to get foul money into the hands of the American poor?
Quote:Capitalism gives America a this-worldly focus that allows death and the afterlife to recede from everyday view.
the fact that the country has a religious right, with considerable influence on the GOP, which controls both congress & the white house, and may have a conservative-leaning judiciary as well, is completely at odds with this statement.
How? Are you arguing that the so-called religious right and the members of the GOP that they considerably influence are the personifications of Capitalism? Are there no capitalists among American atheists, agnostics, liberal Christians, Jews, Moslems, Wiccans, Democrats?
It may very well be that an emergent fundamentalist religious movement in this country presents some degree of threat to the virtues D'Souza believes Capitalism bestows on America, but this is in no way your argument and you would be shameful to lay claim to it.
In any case the point D'Souza is making that affluence, (and relatively speaking, all Americans are affluent), provides people with a reason to focus on the years of their life on earth and not view death as a release and a means to enter a better world.
Affluence is, of course, only part of the equation. The same can be said for opportunity and liberty, but clearly D'Souza believes that American capitalism incorporates opportunity and liberty as well as the accumulation of wealth.
If people live in oppressed poverty and can see no possibility of a way out, life doesn't mean all that much and whether it is nihilism or fanatical religion that that digs its hooks in them, they are not likely to be very concerned with preserving life nor all that put off by taking life.
More nonsense. He said this is the only country in which he has been where people will call someone (who elsewhere is assumed to be a social inferior) sir or ma'am. Is it required that this be done in every nook and cranny of the country for it to be a valid statement? Is it required of D'Souza to point to this or that region? The fact remains that a large section of the country does precisely what D'Souza claims. His statement is valid with or without regional attribution.
If the Founders were religious men as D'Souza claims, they would hold the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God and therefore they would have scorned the accumulation of wealth.
This is, of course, the big lie that makes people like Finn bounce jauntily along oblivious to the train wrecks that the US has left all over the Earth, the millions who have suffered and died, not because the US wants to help, but because the US wants to further its own ends.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. The refusal to admit and ask for accountability, stunning.
There's Finn, and he's hardly the only one, whining because someone has dared to bring up the mafiosa's crimes on his birthday.
"Whaddaya want, he's good to us, his cronies, he loves his grandkids and wife. Leave him alone already, it's his birthday."
