[quote]Diomede wrote:
…
Exactly…time has speeded up SO much within the past 100 years(heck, the past 16 years with the WWW). 400-600 years under the roman republic/empire is probably closer to about 50 years today. Dont ask how i came up with 50 years, it is a complex mathematical formula…[/quote]
Probably the same formula they use to prove global warming.
I’m sorry, wrong thread.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Probably the same formula they use to prove global warming.
I’m sorry, wrong thread.[/quote]
Also, don’t forget, anything you can’t understand and don’t like is wrong, as long as somebody within your spin camp can find a way to make it sound like it is.
Oops, wrong thread!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
I don’t have the answer to that question. The only government I’ve ever lived under is this one, in this time period.
From 60 years later, in America, I’d have a hard time supporting the German govt. of the 40’s.
You don’t have an answer to that question? How convenient. Apparently it is very easy to scream about how everyone should support their government…until we bring up that bad 'ole “history thang”.[/quote]
There is a big difference between supporting your government and supporting your country.
[quote]vroom wrote:
LOL. Retard.[/quote]
Seriously, Vroom - are you ever going to grow a set and debate like an adult?
This getting a little sad to behold. Retard?
I’ve directed no name-calling at you - are you obsessed with me or something?
And sometimes they are inextricably linked - sometimes I’d prefer to live someplace because of its morality/society/culture. Because I believe it to be morally superior - to stop being abstract, say a place that has a high value on civil liberties and property rights, both closely linked to ‘morality’ - I would rather live in that place compared to a place that did not emphasize those values: the conditions are a direct function of that ‘moral’ (or whatever) framework.
It is not an either/or, as you posit.
Well, you can complain about America, and you often do - but, you’re right, not if it is done ignorantly, as in not getting informed.
Wow. Penetrating analysis.
I think you see things a little too ‘black and white’, which is curious given your self-congratulating appreciation of nuance.
Just because you think one place is ‘better’ than another doesn’t mean you reflexively hate the other place or think the other place needs to be rearranged to a carbon copy of what you prefer. It isn’t a case where if you don’t recognize all nations as ‘equals’, you therefore can only love one and must hate the rest.
We may be talking about seperate things - who knows, given the last bit you wrote there.
To clarify - some people think that one culture cannot be superior to another, that there is no such thing as ‘better’ only ‘different’. That is a popular viewpoint among the self-anointed ‘forward’ thinkers, and I think it is categorically wrong.
My point was simple - even a remote suggestion that one country is superior to another will retire some of these folks to a feinting room, so I suspect they have little understanding of what ‘patriotism’ is in the first place.
Patriotism can be taken too far, no doubt - but that isn’t the point.
You know, I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt. I haven’t initiated any kind of personal attack on you, but despite your most rabid efforts, you just aren’t landing any punches on me with your attempts at attacking me personally. I just don’t respect you enough at this point to be bothered by your silliness.
Go and continue to try, though - you only make yourself more and more irrelevant. And, well, assuming you can actually be more irrelevant than you already are with your narcissistic and needlessly Delphic blogs that no one ever reads.
Only thing worse than an internet bully is a wannabe internet bully. Again, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but it’s clear - you’re just a hack.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Are you reading the stuff you write after you send it through? Don’t get any hopes up of winning the Pulitzer Prize any time soon.[/quote]
I realize you are hyper-defensive while nursing that painfully fragile ego of yours, but my point was not to be patently insulting - it was to say that you didn’t write clearly.
But thinking ‘America is better’ is not incompatible with the idea that ‘America is imperfect’. In fact, I’d say they is directly related - one reason why America is better is because we are constantly progressing because of our self-criticism and self-audit. While imperfect, what makes America better is that there is a dynamic open forum to recognize those imperfections and to optimitically try and do something about them.
Not really, some may do, but not as much as you whine about. So long as the criticism is informed and made in good faith, I think you will find most of ‘us’, whoever that is exactly, will not think the criticism ‘un-American’.
However, you will get robust disagreement back - and in order to not fall into being a hypocrite, you would have to do better than constantly labeling those that disagree with you ‘blind followers of the administration’ or whatever the label du jour is. That happens at least as often as a Bush critic gets labeled ‘anti-American’ and is the same problem in reverse.
Nonsense - so long as the criticism is informed and done in good faith, no problem.
Nope - answer the question. Who has said to give up self-criticism and self-audit? Who thinks that is a good idea?
Oh, there a few at the margin - how many are there running around who think America is the source of all misery and evil in the last 100 years?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nope - answer the question. Who has said to give up self-criticism and self-audit? Who thinks that is a good idea?[/quote]
This isn’t as simple as “who said to give up self audit”. No one has said those specific words and I find it rather childish that you play that game so often. The mentality that we are speaking of can be seen in the very people who logged into this thread and called the statements made by a female pop group “ANTIAMERICAN”. If saying anything against either this government, this administration, or our actions abroad is “ANTIAMERICAN” when coming from anyone but a cheerleading Republican, then the screaming message is that pointing out our own faults is indeed “ANTIAMERICAN”. Did you follow that time, or will you come up with some other ridiculous example using specific wording and then ask, “who is saying this?!” That shit got old many debates ago. Let it go. You’ll be alright. It was proved to you right here. How about opening your eyes for once?
I call them as I see them thunder. Your analysis and pedantarianism is simply legendary, boring and useless.
If you don’t get what I’m saying, then I don’t care…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The mentality that we are speaking of can be seen in the very people who logged into this thread and called the statements made by a female pop group “ANTIAMERICAN”.
[/quote]
Not that you’re pointing at me, but I just want to be clear: I do not think the DC are “antiamerican.” Immature and annoying, yes. Anti-american, no.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Immature and annoying, yes.[/quote]
You’ve just described all of us…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
This isn’t as simple as “who said to give up self audit”. No one has said those specific words and I find it rather childish that you play that game so often.[/quote]
I wasn’t looking for a quote - I just wanted you to explain yourself. And it is not a game.
That is exactly my point - I don’t think that there are enough people who think [quote]saying anything against either this government, this administration, or our actions abroad is “ANTIAMERICAN”[/quote] to be that worried about it. Are there people who do it, sure - but a small minority. You make it as though this is a legit movement of lots of people - but it’s not.
You seem really concerned about it - I’m not, I think it is a handful of internet warriors who mouth in sites like this. There is our difference.
Given your track record, I’d let the ‘old debates’ lie - I was merely trying to figure out who actually thought that way, or who you were specifically referencing. I still don’t think this is much of a concern.
As for it being ‘proved right here’, your arrogance may work in other forums when you are lecturing 14 year olds wanting advice about concentration curls, but not here.
I understand what you are saying - and I am disagreeing with it. It can end there.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Given your track record, I’d let the ‘old debates’ lie - I was merely trying to figure out who actually thought that way, or who you were specifically referencing. I still don’t think this is much of a concern.
As for it being ‘proved right here’, your arrogance may work in other forums when you are lecturing 14 year olds wanting advice about concentration curls, but not here.
[/quote]
I know this wasn’t aimed at me, but it sounds like “Yes mom” is the reply you are looking for here.
Greetings!!!
From Worldnetdaily.com
[quote]Dismal sales send Dixie Chicks north
Adding dates in Canada after concerts in U.S. put on hold
Posted: June 14, 2006
Dixie Chicks
After poor ticket sales in at least 12 cities, the politically provocative Dixie Chicks have put their U.S. tour on hold and added more dates in Canada.
Although concert promoters say the shows have not been canceled yet, the slow sales likely will lead to stops being dropped or rescheduled in cities such as Houston, Memphis and St. Louis, the Tennessean newspaper reported.
Some arenas have sold only about 5,000 tickets in contrast to 2003, when the venues mostly were sold out within a few hours. The pop-country group has sold a little more than half of the 14,000 tickets available for a planned Oct. 3 concert in Nashville. When the Chicks played in the city in 2003, tickets were sold out in the first week, the paper said.
In response, the group has added more dates in Canada, including two in Toronto. Tickets in northern U.S. cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia are selling better than in southern and Midwest markets.
Many country music fans turned on the Texas trio in 2003 after lead singer Natalie Maines made disparaging comments about President Bush in front of a London audience.
“Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the Unites States is from Texas,” Maines said.
Radio stations immediately pulled their songs from rotation and the group’s No. 1 single, “Travelin’ Soldier,” plummeted to No. 63 within days.
As WND reported in 2003, two disc jockeys in Colorado Springs, Colo., were suspended for playing the group’s songs. Station Manager Jerry Grant told WND the decision in the “military town” was based on “a huge outcry from our listeners: Do not play the Dixie Chicks.”
WorldNetDaily also reported a radio station in North Carolina offered ticket holders of a Dixie Chicks concert in Greensboro the opportunity to use their tickets at an alternative “patriotic event” the station sponsored the same night ? just in case Chicks fans want to send a message to the group in response to its comments about Bush.
After the controversy, Maines apologized for the comments but then retracted her apology last month.
"I don’t feel that way anymore, "she told Time magazine. “I don’t feel like [the president] is owed any respect whatsoever.”
The group is not doing well on the country charts as most country stations have refused to add its new single, “Not Ready to Make Nice.” The angry lyrics take jabs at fans and program directors that boycotted the group after the London comments.
The Chicks’ album “Taking the Long Way Home,” however, is No. 1 on Billboard’s album chart. Many industry experts credit those sales to the influx of media coverage surrounding the album release, including appearances on CBS’s “60 Minutes” and a cover story in Time magazine.
Despite the controversy, Maines remains defiant. On the Dixie Chicks Official Artist Club website, she writes a letter to fans explaining how she called Ozzy Ozbourne for public relations advice.
“He said ‘f*** it.’ I like that advice. I think I’ll do just that. So from here on out when you call for a statement, explanation, apology, etc., we are just going to have to refer you to this letter.”[/quote]
Whether or not she is Anti-American, she sure is Anti-Brain.
What kind of stupid ass would rip on patriotism and George Bush while trying to earn a living off Country Music?
Red staters wave the flag proudly, believe in patriotism, and voted for George W. Bush.
You reap what you sow.
I urge my Good Guy friends in Canada to vote with your feet.
Stay away.
JeffR
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
That is exactly my point - I don’t think that there are enough people who think saying anything against either this government, this administration, or our actions abroad is “ANTIAMERICAN” to be that worried about it. Are there people who do it, sure - but a small minority. You make it as though this is a legit movement of lots of people - but it’s not.
You seem really concerned about it - I’m not, I think it is a handful of internet warriors who mouth in sites like this. There is our difference.
Given your track record, I’d let the ‘old debates’ lie - I was merely trying to figure out who actually thought that way, or who you were specifically referencing. I still don’t think this is much of a concern.[/quote]
For some strange reason, you sure seem to give yourself credit where it isn’t due for any past debates we have had. Perhaps you should reread them.
[quote]
As for it being ‘proved right here’, your arrogance may work in other forums when you are lecturing 14 year olds wanting advice about concentration curls, but not here.
I understand what you are saying - and I am disagreeing with it. It can end there.[/quote]
My arrogance? Didn’t you just write above about some “track record” you supposedly have over me? You are a douchebag. Congrats. All you have done here is show that I can direct you to the mentality being discussed and you will look at it and still try to pretend it doesn’t exist. I hate to break this to you, but you have nothing over me.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I know this wasn’t aimed at me, but it sounds like “Yes mom” is the reply you are looking for here.[/quote]
Or, in your case, “Yes Daddy”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
All you have done here is show that I can direct you to the mentality being discussed and you will look at it and still try to pretend it doesn’t exist. I hate to break this to you, but you have nothing over me. [/quote]
All your other blather aside, where did I ‘pretend it didn’t exist’? Go read my post - I plainly explained that I was sure it existed, I just thought it was not a point of view that enough people shared for there to be a legitimate problem. You seem to think lots of people think that way - I think only a distinct few do. There is the difference. I understand what you are saying just fine - I just disagree with it as being the kins of problem you suggest it is.
As for your ‘track record’, I was speaking generally, not specifically with me - half of the time in the debates between you and someone else here is spent trying to explain what a ‘straw man’ fallacy is and why you are painfully abusing it.
As for rereading the debates, having to read your posts the first time around is bad enough - doing it for a second time would not be a good use of time.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You are a douchebag. Congrats. [/quote]
Nice. And, though I was avoiding name-calling, I’ll need some help:
What exactly is a good name to call 270 pounds of a fragile ego, a wannabe bully who simply can’t back up how tough and hard he desperately wants everyone to think he is, and the embarrassed owner of the biggest persecution complex we have around these threads?
Man, I am stumped for a good concise name for that. On the name-calling front, you definitely got me. Well played.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
You are a douchebag. Congrats.
Nice. And, though I was avoiding name-calling, I’ll need some help:
What exactly is a good name to call 270 pounds of a fragile ego, a wannabe bully who simply can’t back up how tough and hard he desperately wants everyone to think he is, and the embarrassed owner of the biggest persecution complex we have around these threads?
Man, I am stumped for a good concise name for that. On the name-calling front, you definitely got me. Well played.[/quote]
Hilarious. You are one to go on and on about how you don’t specifically call anyone names…then you harp about my supposed persecution complex. I don’t have to back up anything on this board anymore than I have already. Your post here sounds like sad cries of jealousy. I am confused as to who seems to feel “persecuted”. Like I said before, you have nothing over me…and it shows.
I think he’s kinda sick Prof, he wants me to call him “daddy” or something.
I’m so revolted by the whole concept I’m only going to be able to have four servings of dinner this evening…