DescentBB

Remember when an Islamic terrorist group issued a statement to the American people, saying, basically, that we had no excuse because we chose to elect George W. Bush to a second term? That now we are to blame, not just our leaders anymore. Only a fool would have taken the threat seriously, in light of the attacks on the Twin Towers several years previously. What were they going to do now that we were actually responsible? Target combatants?! Now we're getting the same line from The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland.

Excerpt from '[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama/print]The world's verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for[/url]' wrote:... Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for. ...

Creepy. I wonder if it was a direct inspiration.

I believe he voices the desperate, frenzy-pitch of many hard-core Liberals in our own country, but he presumes to add the clout of world opinion (or the threat of world condemnation). 50+% of a country's population is marginalized at the political peril of Liberal elitists everywhere, in an act either of denial or self-delusion. And I presume that percentage will only change in favor of conservatives, since we don't kill our babies.

It may sound selfish, but maybe we're not willing to throw our country away in order to try to correct our foreign policy, assuming their gripe with us has a basis in reality, something that is hard to know, because the arguments are steeped in the same Liberal, semi-factual vilification that surrounds the Sarah Palin uproar.

the following paragraph wrote:... And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race". ...

He's out of his mind...

My parents won't vote for Barack Obama because of his color and name. Do they consider themselves racist? Of course not!

wow! more religious nutbattery and another retarded post! how much further can this go with this glaring lack of critical thinking?

nobody cares about america anymore. nobody takes america seriously anymore. it's a lost cause.

That's it! I'm petitioning my government to annex Canada!

First, a stinging indictment....

Ferno wrote:wow! more religious nutbattery and another retarded post! how much further can this go with this glaring lack of critical thinking?

Ferno declares the post to be crap. And he supports his complaint with....

then he wrote:nobody cares about america anymore. nobody takes america seriously anymore. it's a lost cause.

...some different crap!

x2

You talk about critical thinking, but as far as I can tell this little jab is about par for the course, with you, Ferno. Is your \"critical thinking\" only in your imagination? Are you confusing \"critical\" with \"Liberal?\" And at what point did this get religious?

What is with the \"large L\" liberal thing? In Canada we have the Liberal Party. That is a large L proper name. If you are ranting about people with liberal outlooks then it should be a small \"l\" since you are targeting an attitude not an entity. There is also a British Liberal Democratic Party but they are not a major force in modern times.
Do I have to keep nattering at you guys to use English properly? Sheesh.

Ferno wrote:nobody cares about america anymore.

In a recent CNN survey (taken mostly in July and partly in August), something like 80% of people in the 6 European countries surveyed had an opinion about the US presidential race, and the number was even higher for Canadians. A lot of people care about America. But America is not a teenage girl. We don't care about winning popularity contests, we just care about getting stuff done.

Ford Prefect wrote:What is with the "large L" liberal thing?

I use small-l liberal to refer to classical liberalism, which is close to small-l libertarianism (but not necessarily the Libertarian party.) What people call Big-L Liberals are better described as Leftists, as there is very little "liberal" about them.

Gee…it’s not like those Democrats to use scare tactics, during an election…

Hehe, thanks, Ford Prefect. It may be that the term is inaccurate for this purpose, or perhaps I need several terms.

Here's what I'm trying to describe, in as much detail as I can summon: a person who subscribes to the naturalistic assumption. Who may or may not appreciate religion as a positive force, but ascribes no real truth to it, even if they give credence to a deity. Who believes, because of their faith in naturalism, and the theory of evolution, that humanity is improving and can be essentially perfected. Who, because of this, cannot see eye-to-eye with our founders on their philosophy of government that is based upon the idea that men are inherently fallen and prone to evil and abuses of power. Furthermore they recognize no inherent flaw in humanity, and this combined with a degree of intellectual pride results in their failure to appreciate various failed historical forms of government and economy, which they blithely pursue as the Democratic party.

Had a little fun, there, but that's basically it. Liberalism (or whatever term would be more correct: \"the Left\", ...) is larger than the Democratic party (obviously), and is inseparably linked with naturalism (though some people may naively subscribe to Leftist ideas without realizing this), intellectual pride, and the undermining of absolute morality.

I'll consult the dictionary. Obviously I need a term other than \"liberal.\"

I edited out the word \"precluded\", because it was a misuse and I forgot to replace it in my pre-reply editing.

The funny part, Spidey, is that those kind of scare-tactics are only effective on people like them, not conservatives.

Lothar wrote:

Ferno wrote:nobody cares about america anymore.

In a recent CNN survey (taken mostly in July and partly in August), something like 80% of people in the 6 European countries surveyed had an opinion about the US presidential race, and the number was even higher for Canadians. A lot of people care about America. But America is not a teenage girl. We don't care about winning popularity contests, we just care about getting stuff done.

But now you're marginalizing the Liberal Americans. A fair portion of America gives our popularity with the rest of the world as a big reason for electing Obama. Now if that portion of America has its way, the consequences will be grave. If that portion represents America, frankly, I see the United States being sold out. Much like how the UK is being sold out to the Muslims (argue whether that's bad or not if you like, and call me a hater if it amuses you, but the UK is in for a great many changes as a result, and I doubt they'll be agreeable to anyone but the politicians who stand to benefit).

Having said that, I think the American people have already been sold out on a front that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are properly concerned with: economics.

Having said that, I think the American people have already been sold out on a front that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are properly concerned with: economics.

I don't agree with much that you post Sgt. Thorne but I do agree with that.

Spidey wrote:Gee…it’s not like those Democrats to use scare tactics, during an election…

No, that's typically a Republican strategy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:x2

You talk about critical thinking, but as far as I can tell this little jab is about par for the course, with you, Ferno. Is your "critical thinking" only in your imagination? Are you confusing "critical" with "Liberal?" And at what point did this get religious?

when it comes to you thorne, you lost your critical thinking skills some time ago. your post said only three words. stay the course.

I thought that the Federal Government was supposed to stay OUT of governing business. Since when was their job to MANAGE it or the President for that matter?

that's just stupid.

But it is reality.
The government of any country has an enormous effect on the economy in many different ways and when the actions of businesses are such that they are detrimental to the welfare of the citizens then the government must act to protect them. An example are the environmental laws that prevent a business from doing things that damage the parts of the world that we all share such as water and air.
Every tax has an effect on the economy.
Every time the government borrows money it has an effect on the economy.
After awhile you cannot separate the two.

Ferno wrote:how much further can this go with this glaring lack of critical thinking?

Ferno wrote:when it comes to you thorne, you lost your critical thinking skills some time ago. your post said only three words. stay the course.

Disagreement is something I can respect, Ferno, but that's not a line you can just drop and then walk away like usual. If, between the two of us, I'm the one that lacks in critical thinking, then you ought to be able to show how. If you can't, then you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm sitting here wondering why we give a crap what the rest of the world thinks about who and why we elect someone as President. I'm not a racist at all, but unlike state senators, the President should represent the majority of the US. Blacks only make up 10% of the population. Jeez, I hope Obama, if he gets elected it's because of his ability and not because white people have been made to feel guilty of stuff they actually had no hand in =/.

flip wrote:I'm not a racist at all, but unlike state senators, the President should represent the majority of the US. Blacks only make up 10% of the population. Jeez, I hope Obama, if he gets elected it's because of his ability and not because white people have been made to feel guilty of stuff they actually had no hand in =

And if he gets elected Blacks will have made up less then 3% of the presidents?

There are no statistics that indicate that Obama is at an advantage for being black. In fact quite the opposite. Please read this link flip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

Sergeant Thorne wrote:If you can't, then you don't know what you're talking about.

Tried that, felt like i was wasting my breath.

No I agree, he is at a disadvantage just for the fact that he is black. Also, that will most likely be the reason he is not going to become President. Most people will vote for their own kind regardless. Without hate or prejudice (or in some cases with), but just for the fact that they believe their own kind will understand them and represent them better. He's at a disadvantage just because he represents a very small portion of America.

flip wrote:Without hate or prejudice (or in some cases with), but just for the fact that they believe their own kind will understand them and represent them better.

Ya, I agree. I think the hate filled racists who make their appearances from time to time on the media probably help him. But its the non-hate filled "racists" like you mention that will probably keep that glass barrier firmly intact.

Ferno wrote:Tried that, felt like i was wasting my breath.

Oh... that was it? I didn't even understand what you were trying to say until I re-read it, several times, just now.

Well don't waste your breath, whatever you do. Let's make a deal, you little dweeb, you don't waste your breath arguing with me, and I won't waste my time reading what little you do type. How's that for a plan? Now we're getting somewhere!

Benefits of this new deal:
1 ) We'll save planet earth by decreasing the carbon emissions we both would have created!
2 ) We'll lower stress levels in our own lives caused by disagreement!
3 ) Reduced eye-strain, because we'll both be looking at our monitors that much less!
4 ) We'll reduce internet congestion by a fraction of a fraction!
5 ) Might very well reduce our internet bill if either of us are paying per-kilobyte!
6 ) More time for family and things that really matter in life!
7 ) We'll get more work done!
8 ) Increase the life of our keyboards!
9 ) Are you still reading? Get the **** out of my topic!



I think from now on when I disagree with someone I'll just tell them that they have no critical thinking skills and then disdain to elucidate, that way I'll never be wrong.

I don't think you can out-troll anyone by using five-dollar words.

try ten-dollar words next time!

What about,

10) Stop derailing our own damn topics

LOL. Hey, I don't discriminate.

11) spout half-cocked rumors and call it the truth!

12) think of all the fossil fuels you will save from the gallery not cooking up some popcorn for the show.

“9 ) Are you still reading? Get the **** out of my topic!” roflakobpo (rolling on floor laughing all kinds of body parts off)

Ferno wrote:I don't think you can out-troll anyone by using five-dollar words.

try ten-dollar words next time!

how about recousetrant


*EDIT* fixed

Lol I actually copied and pasted that word because I had no idea what it meant. Duper is now officially an ass

you sure you spelled that right duper? wanted to check out the definition but I got nothing.

fixed. ... loong day. sry. You won't find a definition on-line. At least not on a dictionary unless you are a paying subscriber.

It means unbending or unyielding.

Duper wrote: At least not on a dictionary unless you are a paying subscriber.

now that's stupid on a whole other level.

I believe he voices the desperate, frenzy-pitch of many hard-core Liberals in our own country, but he presumes to add the clout of world opinion (or the threat of world condemnation). 50+% of a country's population is marginalized at the political peril of Liberal elitists everywhere, in an act either of denial or self-delusion. And I presume that percentage will only change in favor of conservatives, since we don't kill our babies.

Liberal elitists - lol.
What does that mean exactly? That we're smarter than you and you're threatened? I think this guy makes a decent point but is slightly off-base, but either way it seems you're determined to masturbate to these political buzz words you hear on the O'Reilly Factor. No Spin must refer to those rusty underused cogs in your brain.

I wish you would kill your babies so we wouldn't have to deal with them growing up to be jackasses like you people.

*sigh* The real haters always show their true colors in the end.

Liberal Elitist and Conservative Blue Bloods, both think of themselves as so intellectually superior to the un-washed masses that it is their divine destiny to control the country as they see fit.

Succinct enough?

That's exactly it. It wasn't a political buzz-word at all.

Ferno wrote:

Duper wrote: At least not on a dictionary unless you are a paying subscriber.

now that's stupid on a whole other level.

Welcome to the internet. Not Everything is free. Oh wait... that's in another thread...

Liberal Elitist and Conservative Blue Bloods, both think of themselves as so intellectually superior to the un-washed masses that it is their divine destiny to control the country as they see fit.

Ah but is the alternative an Idiocracy?