[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Are you aware that most of Prussia and whole upper Silesia aren’t german anymore? Since poles are the only europeans who support Bush, they’d probably vote for McCain.
No wonder a geek like you wants to grant them voting rights.
…
[/quote]
“Irony: a form of humor, utterly lost on some.”
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
lixy wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
Ken Kaniff wrote:
Serious question: Why should I care?
America can either try to understand why they get people motivated to fly planes into their buildings, or build a wall around and a roof over its country. Its up you. Thats where Ron Paul was 100% right.
Hilarious that you think “understanding” will actually stop terrorists from trying to attack us.
How exactly did you infer that from his post?
Because he presented it as an either/or. I assumed he was talking about protecting the US since his second option was building a wall and roof.
[/quote]
You and thunderbolt are precisely correct.
Perhaps KK is a Reasonable Man.
The Reasonable Man presumes everyone with a grievance has a justification, and is open to compromise. Find out what the Murderous Fanatic wants, and meet him half-way, or completely, as some would have it.
But the Fanatic does not value his life, and certainly not the lives of others. His goal is The Cause; There is no need for further Reason. There is no room for compromise, and no Reason to do so, since life is of no value beyond The Cause.
So, EuroLiberals, and American Epicureans, will gladly and Reasonably commit suicide for their lack of belief, and for the Fanatic’s beliefs.
Now, the question would then be: Is Obama such a Reasonable Man?
Political solutions, in his world, make sense. Understand your adversary and Reason with him. The trouble is, the real world also has Fanatics, and would he also Reason away our security with them? (Ahmadinnahjacket being arguably a case in point.)
Negotiate with reasonable people. But why act on the reasoning claimed by Fanatics?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
lixy wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
Ken Kaniff wrote:
Serious question: Why should I care?
America can either try to understand why they get people motivated to fly planes into their buildings, or build a wall around and a roof over its country. Its up you. Thats where Ron Paul was 100% right.
Hilarious that you think “understanding” will actually stop terrorists from trying to attack us.
How exactly did you infer that from his post?
Because he presented it as an either/or. I assumed he was talking about protecting the US since his second option was building a wall and roof.
You and thunderbolt are precisely correct.
Perhaps KK is a Reasonable Man.
The Reasonable Man presumes everyone with a grievance has a justification, and is open to compromise. Find out what the Murderous Fanatic wants, and meet him half-way, or completely, as some would have it.
But the Fanatic does not value his life, and certainly not the lives of others. His goal is The Cause; There is no need for further Reason. There is no room for compromise, and no Reason to do so, since life is of no value beyond The Cause.
So, EuroLiberals, and American Epicureans, will gladly and Reasonably commit suicide for their lack of belief, and for the Fanatic’s beliefs.
Now, the question would then be: Is Obama such a Reasonable Man?
Political solutions, in his world, make sense. Understand your adversary and Reason with him. The trouble is, the real world also has Fanatics, and would he also Reason away our security with them? (Ahmadinnahjacket being arguably a case in point.)
Negotiate with reasonable people. But why act on the reasoning claimed by Fanatics?
[/quote]
You reading this lixydouche?
Hell I wish I came up with your and Thunderbolt’s responses.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Before Bush, europeans loved America. Now most people think you’re more dangerous then Iran.
Serious question: Why should I care?[/quote]
Yeah … who gives a damn what those socialists think about us.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
lixy wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
Ken Kaniff wrote:
Serious question: Why should I care?
America can either try to understand why they get people motivated to fly planes into their buildings, or build a wall around and a roof over its country. Its up you. Thats where Ron Paul was 100% right.
Hilarious that you think “understanding” will actually stop terrorists from trying to attack us.
How exactly did you infer that from his post?
Because he presented it as an either/or. I assumed he was talking about protecting the US since his second option was building a wall and roof.
You and thunderbolt are precisely correct.
Perhaps KK is a Reasonable Man.
The Reasonable Man presumes everyone with a grievance has a justification, and is open to compromise. Find out what the Murderous Fanatic wants, and meet him half-way, or completely, as some would have it.
But the Fanatic does not value his life, and certainly not the lives of others. His goal is The Cause; There is no need for further Reason. There is no room for compromise, and no Reason to do so, since life is of no value beyond The Cause.
So, EuroLiberals, and American Epicureans, will gladly and Reasonably commit suicide for their lack of belief, and for the Fanatic’s beliefs.
Now, the question would then be: Is Obama such a Reasonable Man?
Political solutions, in his world, make sense. Understand your adversary and Reason with him. The trouble is, the real world also has Fanatics, and would he also Reason away our security with them? (Ahmadinnahjacket being arguably a case in point.)
Negotiate with reasonable people. But why act on the reasoning claimed by Fanatics?
You reading this lixydouche?
Hell I wish I came up with your and Thunderbolt’s responses.[/quote]
Whatever I may think of John Bolton, you and Mikeyali may be interested in what he says about the Berlin speech:
Schwarzfahrer need not bother. Bolton holds no Irony for him.
But do not worry, Schwarzfahrer, mein schatz. I have for you Obama-irony:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Are you aware that most of Prussia and whole upper Silesia aren’t german anymore? Since poles are the only europeans who support Bush, they’d probably vote for McCain.
No wonder a geek like you wants to grant them voting rights.
@MtbKid:
Cult followers?
Is it so hard to understand your current President is a debacle - at least from a PR point of view, surely you can grant me that?
Before Bush, europeans loved America. Now most people think you’re more dangerous then Iran.
[/quote]
I like to refer to them as a cult because they follow his outrageous idiotic ideas based solely off what he says.
I never said bush was a good president.
Sorry the euros hate us, but I would rather have them hate us then have a man that will fuck our economy up MORE, and who i believe doesn’t understand the vastness of his plans.
Also, I think he is a socialist scumbag and will allow other countries to dictate our actions.
Anyways, are other countries gonna like us anymore if we pull outa Iraq and move the guys to Afghanistan, like obama wants to do?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Standndeliver wrote:
Americans are hated because we are free and prosperous. We work very hard, take care of our families, and take in refugees from all around the world.
I rest my case.[/quote]
Why? When did whatever your country is ever liberate anybody? America rebuilt Europe and they hate us. I think you are all ungrateful and crazy.
And, as an aside, if Obama’s election will make Europe “love America once again”, that says a great deal more about the navel-gazing, unserious Europeans than it does about anything related to America.
We live in a dangerously superficial age, where politics is looking more and more like American Idol. The irony, it seems, is that the Left - long critics of the stupidity and shallowness of pop culture and its puerile devotion to skin-deep imagery and fashion - now wants to take Politics and Governance at the Highest Level and measure its candidates by, well, the shallowness and stupidity of skin-deep imagery and fashionable sentiment.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
lixy wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
Ken Kaniff wrote:
Serious question: Why should I care?
America can either try to understand why they get people motivated to fly planes into their buildings, or build a wall around and a roof over its country. Its up you. Thats where Ron Paul was 100% right.
Hilarious that you think “understanding” will actually stop terrorists from trying to attack us.
How exactly did you infer that from his post?
Because he presented it as an either/or. I assumed he was talking about protecting the US since his second option was building a wall and roof.
You and thunderbolt are precisely correct.
Perhaps KK is a Reasonable Man.
The Reasonable Man presumes everyone with a grievance has a justification, and is open to compromise. Find out what the Murderous Fanatic wants, and meet him half-way, or completely, as some would have it.
But the Fanatic does not value his life, and certainly not the lives of others. His goal is The Cause; There is no need for further Reason. There is no room for compromise, and no Reason to do so, since life is of no value beyond The Cause.
So, EuroLiberals, and American Epicureans, will gladly and Reasonably commit suicide for their lack of belief, and for the Fanatic’s beliefs.
Now, the question would then be: Is Obama such a Reasonable Man?
Political solutions, in his world, make sense. Understand your adversary and Reason with him. The trouble is, the real world also has Fanatics, and would he also Reason away our security with them? (Ahmadinnahjacket being arguably a case in point.)
Negotiate with reasonable people. But why act on the reasoning claimed by Fanatics?
[/quote]
I know now why you do not feel the need to get to know your enemies, it is because you already know them right down to the core of their inner being.
And not just them, Euroliberals, American Epicureans (btw, did you ever read Epicur? Because I did and he does not propose mindless hedonism), the president of Iran, everyone.
And even more astonishing you also know that any one of their followers is a fanatic, not to be reasoned with.
Which does of course only bring us to the next point, why does Americas foreign policy seem to produce so many “fanatics”?
Are you freer than Holland, Sweden or Switzerland?
The more than 100 “defensive” bases in foreign countries and the constant meddling in other nations affairs would not look a tad “offensive” if, let´s say, China did the same?
And after the US has killed a few million civilians in the 20th century, there is noone that could have a legitimate problem with the US.
Land of the free, home of the brave?
Hell no, meet your new national anthem:
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Before Bush, europeans loved America. Now most people think you’re more dangerous then Iran.
Serious question: Why should I care?[/quote]
Europe wants a weak America. They have for as long as I can remember. No surprise they want someone like Obama they can manipulate.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ken Kaniff wrote:
America can either try to understand why they get people motivated to fly planes into their buildings, or build a wall around and a roof over its country. Its up you. Thats where Ron Paul was 100% right.
We already know why they fly planes into our buildings - for the exact same reason they slaughter innocent African Christians and animists in the Sudan, poor Third World tribal peoples who have no foreign policy at all to spark such “blowback”. Interesting, no?
They aren’t reacting, they are acting - and their agenda changes little depending on who they want to victimize.
Do yourself a favor and divorce yourself from the idiocy that Islamists are “noble savages” driven to hurt others because they have been oppressed. It’s naive and dangerous, and it looks like we - based on Obama’s speech in Berlin - are about to revert to such sloppy thinking.[/quote]
Good post. This is a global war and it was not started by American actions. It was started because the infidel exists and must be subjugated or destroyed.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ken Kaniff wrote:
America can either try to understand why they get people motivated to fly planes into their buildings, or build a wall around and a roof over its country. Its up you. Thats where Ron Paul was 100% right.
We already know why they fly planes into our buildings - for the exact same reason they slaughter innocent African Christians and animists in the Sudan, poor Third World tribal peoples who have no foreign policy at all to spark such “blowback”. Interesting, no?
They aren’t reacting, they are acting - and their agenda changes little depending on who they want to victimize.
Do yourself a favor and divorce yourself from the idiocy that Islamists are “noble savages” driven to hurt others because they have been oppressed. It’s naive and dangerous, and it looks like we - based on Obama’s speech in Berlin - are about to revert to such sloppy thinking.
Good post. This is a global war and it was not started by American actions. It was started because the infidel exists and must be subjugated or destroyed.[/quote]
Interestingly enough they mostly attack infidels who have bases in their countries.
And they attack them right there, in their countries.
Not that they would not do unspeakable things to the minorities in their countries, but that would not make it a global problem and whe are pretty good at ignoring that anyway.
[quote]orion wrote:
…
Interestingly enough they mostly attack infidels who have bases in their countries.
…[/quote]
Like in Darfur or Turkey or India or Iraqi’s on their way to a funeral?
Why do you lie and deny so? Is your hatred for the US so deep? Did my uncle kill your grandpa?
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
“This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.” mike[/quote]
This gives a real good insight into the thinking of Obama. His thinking is not grounded in reality. He is living in a fantasy world. It is too bad that noone ever challenges him on this one because it really shows him to be a wild dreamer who is clueless to the harsh realities of the real world. He leaves himself wide open but noone ever points out the idiocy of his fantasy.
His fantasy on controlling nuclear weapons should also be juxtaposed with his new found belief that gun control isn’t the best idea since sliced bread. His core belief is that weapons can be controlled through regulation. All you need to do is make a law and everyone will go along with it because everyone in the world is trustworthy. What a moron.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
200 000 people were there (I was, too).
Last time Bush was here, some 500 pre selected flag waivers along with nearly as much police greeted him.
You can say what you want, this man’s charisma could rebuild the US’ shit-tarnished reputation.
Quite a feat.[/quote]
This is why the tradition has been that politics ends at the border. Obama’s speech has got all these people overseas excited that he is going to be the next president. If Obama doesn’t get elected and people overseas get their hopes dashed they are going to have a new reason for hating the US and McCain is going to be the one who has to deal with the consequences of Obama’s ambition.
[quote]orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
lixy wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
Ken Kaniff wrote:
…
I know now why you do not feel the need to get to know your enemies, it is because you already know them right down to the core of their inner being.
And not just them, Euroliberals, American Epicureans (btw, did you ever read Epicur? Because I did and he does not propose mindless hedonism), the president of Iran, everyone.
And even more astonishing you also know that any one of their followers is a fanatic, not to be reasoned with.
Which does of course only bring us to the next point, why does Americas foreign policy seem to produce so many “fanatics”?
Are you freer than Holland, Sweden or Switzerland?
The more than 100 “defensive” bases in foreign countries and the constant meddling in other nations affairs would not look a tad “offensive” if, let´s say, China did the same?
And after the US has killed a few million civilians in the 20th century, there is noone that could have a legitimate problem with the US.
Land of the free, home of the brave?
Hell no, meet your new national anthem:
- YouTube [/quote]
For someone who derides the lack of reading comprehension in others, you show surprising little of it yourself.
I most assuredly did not identify EuroLiberals and American Epicureans as the enemy; they are merely free riders, enjoying the liberality of the Enlightened West. THey are not fanatics until they are ready to die or kill for their…er, beliefs.
And clearly, you choose to misunderstand The Fanatic. He would not be a fanatic if he would reason and negotiate. (“…arguably Ahmahdinnahjacket.”) Once again, the Fanatic is defined by his lack of reasoning. American foreign policy does not produce Fanatics; after all, what piece of American policy nurtured the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood, for example, in the '20’s, years before the Saudis, oil, Israel, etc.
The Fanatic’s real enemy is not Policy, but The West–the culture of liberality. American policy is simply a handy excuse for The Fanatic, used to delude his countrymen and the naive of the West. Orion, consider yourself deluded.
(And in a typical piece of anti-American bigotry, your bizarre allusion to millions dead must surely be a classic of moral inversion, even for someone as destitute as yourself, ascribing as you do to Americans the results of the Twentieth Century slaughters most notably instigated by two notable Austrians. Really, whom do you think you fool with foolishness like this?)
Last, I understand Epicurus and the whole Epicurean meme. It is ensconced in Mikeyali’s favorite author’s Declaration of Independence. But Americans, you will be pleased to know, can’t even get that right; that is why I qualified the term as American Epicureans. Now, if you only could achieve a state of aponia of your own, and not borrowed at the expense and blood of others, you might even be respectable.
Go ahead, stamp your widdle feet.
“Reading comprehension. Enjoy it.”
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
…
Interestingly enough they mostly attack infidels who have bases in their countries.
…
Like in Darfur or Turkey or India or Iraqi’s on their way to a funeral?
Why do you lie and deny so? Is your hatred for the US so deep? Did my uncle kill your grandpa?[/quote]
No, Zap, your uncle did not kill Orion’s grandpa. He died in the Holocaust, too.
Fell out of a guard tower.
Something else that needs to be considered in the present European anti-Americanism is fear. They have a large Muslim immigrant population over there and people are afraid of dying in the next terrorist attack.
They think that if they display a deep anti-Americanism that the terrorists will give them a pass and go after Americans instead. The reality is this anti-Americanism over strategy in the war on terror makes them a target. Because it encourages the terrorists to drive a wedge between the US and it’s allies by attacking them instead. This is why after 9/11 so many attacks have happened outside of the US.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Something else that needs to be considered in the present European anti-Americanism is fear. They have a large Muslim immigrant population over there and people are afraid of dying in the next terrorist attack.
They think that if they display a deep anti-Americanism that the terrorists will give them a pass and go after Americans instead. The reality is this anti-Americanism over strategy in the war on terror makes them a target. Because it encourages the terrorists to drive a wedge between the US and it’s allies by attacking them instead. This is why after 9/11 so many attacks have happened outside of the US.
[/quote]
Well said, Sifu, and pertinent to the thread.
Orion, for example recognizes the risks of Islamo-fascism: “it is more likely that [he be] struck by lightning.”
Of course, I know of about 3200 humans struck dead by lightning on 9/11, and you know of more in London, and Madrid, and Edinburgh…
Did our Policy drive these murderers? Or skilled application of terror to achieve their purposes?
So Barack, our latest empty screen, reflects the hopes and fears–as you outline them–of our European friends. How much safer and commodious for Europa would be the Obama presidency! No more lightning! Terror would just disappear, right?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Something else that needs to be considered in the present European anti-Americanism is fear. They have a large Muslim immigrant population over there and people are afraid of dying in the next terrorist attack.
They think that if they display a deep anti-Americanism that the terrorists will give them a pass and go after Americans instead. The reality is this anti-Americanism over strategy in the war on terror makes them a target. Because it encourages the terrorists to drive a wedge between the US and it’s allies by attacking them instead. This is why after 9/11 so many attacks have happened outside of the US.
Well said, Sifu, and pertinent to the thread.
Orion, for example recognizes the risks of Islamo-fascism: “it is more likely that [he be] struck by lightning.”
Of course, I know of about 3200 humans struck dead by lightning on 9/11, and you know of more in London, and Madrid, and Edinburgh…
Did our Policy drive these murderers? Or skilled application of terror to achieve their purposes?
So Barack, our latest empty screen, reflects the hopes and fears–as you outline them–of our European friends. How much safer and commodious for Europa would be the Obama presidency! No more lightning! Terror would just disappear, right?[/quote]
No. It will never disappear. The genie is out of the bottle. In the old days, only states had the ability to inflict damage on a (semi-)massive scale. Nowadays, there are so many ways to do it that the guy shooting “liberals” in church just doesn’t cut it as a piece of news.
Nobody here claimed that Obama will change anything. US foreign policy is carved in stone and no president is about to change its course. Obama is just surfing on the wave of discontent the public is having towards Bush and Republicans in general. Of course, being young, good looking, eloquent, colored and a cunning politician (i.e: full of shit) helps. And as you say, he “reflects the hopes” of Europeans and non-Europeans alike. A people sick to the bone of the Bush doctrine and the piles of dead bodies it created.
Europeans don’t get their panties in a bunch because some whackjob has blown up a train. They’ve seen worse. In general, there is a sentiment of tranquility around here. The police does its work and everybody’s happy. However, they do get pissed when they hear drums of war when it’s so obviously avoidable. This becomes evident when you look at opinion polls of both sides of the Atlantic. Americans are in majority supporting attacks on Iran whereas Europeans do not even come close. The only plausible reason I could think of is the tighter control of lobbies and other interest groups (e.g: big corporations) on the US media.
Obama casts a sense of hope, understanding and a less bloody tomorrow. There’s nothing you can do about that. Understandably, after 8 years of Dubya’s rule on the planet, people are responding to that message of change and hope. It’s phony and transparent but most people just want to believe.
You disregard all this, go in a strawman craze and pick tasteless black humor to attack the memory of T-members’ deceased relatives. That’s low. Very low.