NationStates Jolt Archive

those whiny Europeans
those cowardly Euro's
You seem to have some issues. Perhaps it would help to talk to someone about them. ;)

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right". The dislike and even hatred the two sides feel for each other grows more rabid and intense every year. So, why am I worried the U.S may fall? As Lincoln said "A house divided apon itself cannot stand".

Don't get me wrong, thats not the only reason I think we are headed for disaster. Some of the others reasons are, of course the debt, the hatred of the rest of the world, aimed at us, and the massive cultural strain the illegals are putting on the U.S. If you think about it, this is disaster in the making, but hey at least those whiny Europeans will have to deal with China, Russia and a growing latin america as well as domestic riots and cultural erosion. The safekeeping of the world won't be our problem much longer.:cool:


Wait I almost forgot, those 3'd world dictaors will manage to get their hands on nukes eventually, and without the U.S to deal with them they will use them eventually . Unless of course China or Russia desides to stop them but really, if they start meddling with others affairs, who is to keep them from stopping? It certainly won't be those cowardly Euro's and everyone else will be to weak. I'm not even taking into account the terrorist's! Ain't it a wonderfull world we live in folks? Well, later Ya'll.;)

"Divided" ? Most western countries have coalition governments with strong opposition parties that are far wider distributed across the political spectrum than the dems and reps.

Surely the USA is not so pathetic that it cannot deal with much smaller differences ?

Ehh, typical alarmist bull with a healthy hatred of immigrants and a slight at europeans thrown in for effect.

I'm shocked to see nothing about jesus.

Ah well, move along folks, nothing to see here.

Aw, c'mon folks. Don't feed the troll. He isn't even funny or clever or anything...

Ehh, typical alarmist bull with a healthy hatred of immigrants and a slight at europeans thrown in for effect.

I'm shocked to see nothing about jesus.

Ah well, move along folks, nothing to see here.
Thats why they're called ILLEGALS. I have no problem with those who immigrate legitmately, pay taxes and follow our laws. And Europe aint exactly the bastion of peace. The rioting a couple years back because people couldn't handle a little free speech about Mohammed, and France pursuing it's imperialist agenda in Africa.

Meh speculation, but:

"cowardly Euro's"

and where do you suppose the US came from in the first place?
Besides it's probably because the US armed forces have attacked god knows how many countries, and not all for nice reasons. That's why many people hate the US government, that and it has alot of power over other countries.

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right". The dislike and even hatred the two sides feel for each other grows more rabid and intense every year. So, why am I worried the U.S may fall? As Lincoln said "A house divided apon itself cannot stand".

Don't get me wrong, thats not the only reason I think we are headed for disaster. Some of the others reasons are, of course the debt, the hatred of the rest of the world, aimed at us, and the massive cultural strain the illegals are putting on the U.S. If you think about it, this is disaster in the making, but hey at least those whiny Europeans will have to deal with China, Russia and a growing latin america as well as domestic riots and cultural erosion. The safekeeping of the world won't be our problem much longer.:cool:


Wait I almost forgot, those 3'd world dictaors will manage to get their hands on nukes eventually, and without the U.S to deal with them they will use them eventually . Unless of course China or Russia desides to stop them but really, if they start meddling with others affairs, who is to keep them from stopping? It certainly won't be those cowardly Euro's and everyone else will be to weak. I'm not even taking into account the terrorist's! Ain't it a wonderfull world we live in folks? Well, later Ya'll.;)

We don't assassinate our political rivals or hack their supporters to pieces with machetes. Despite the efforts of wackos in Montana, we don't have guerilla oganizations in the mountains shelling population centers. Political apathy will keep us united. :)

Wah wah wah... boo hoo... *sighs*

Not like it would be a bad thing if the US had a cultural revolution. It's a good thing this little friend of our called "change".

Every nation will fall one day, it's just a matter of when.

The division of sides is hardly an issue, it's natural, and the US, apart from the Civil War, has always had peaceful transitions of power. America's "left" is not a left at all, from a universal perspective, a Democrat like Hilary or Obama would appear as center right. And the parties are becoming more and more like each other anyway.

And since nukes were made in the US, and we armed and continually support Isreal, I think this nation has reaped what it is sewn.

Thats why they're called ILLEGALS. I have no problem with those who immigrate legitmately, pay taxes and follow our laws.

Bullshit. Utter and total bullshit. Everyone claims that they have no problems with immigrants if they only followed the laws, but look at the vitrol that got spewed when there was talk of simply making them all legal residents and no longer making them illegal immigrants.

No, this whole idea of "it's only because they break the law" rhetoric is a useful tool to hide bigotry and racism, but it falls apart when it becomes clear that nobody who says it has any interest in actually letting them be here legally with any greater ease.

*snip*
Let me paraphrase: "WAA! Immigrants stealing my Anglo Saxon nation! WAAA! Europeans are all gonna die because without the Almighty United States they'll be attacked by Peru and Godzilla!"

I mean, what the fuck is all that about?

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right". The dislike and even hatred the two sides feel for each other grows more rabid and intense every year. So, why am I worried the U.S may fall? As Lincoln said "A house divided apon itself cannot stand".

Don't get me wrong, thats not the only reason I think we are headed for disaster. Some of the others reasons are, of course the debt, the hatred of the rest of the world, aimed at us, and the massive cultural strain the illegals are putting on the U.S. If you think about it, this is disaster in the making, but hey at least those whiny Europeans will have to deal with China, Russia and a growing latin america as well as domestic riots and cultural erosion. The safekeeping of the world won't be our problem much longer.:cool:


Wait I almost forgot, those 3'd world dictaors will manage to get their hands on nukes eventually, and without the U.S to deal with them they will use them eventually . Unless of course China or Russia desides to stop them but really, if they start meddling with others affairs, who is to keep them from stopping? It certainly won't be those cowardly Euro's and everyone else will be to weak. I'm not even taking into account the terrorist's! Ain't it a wonderfull world we live in folks? Well, later Ya'll.;)

This just makes me laugh at its idiocy. :)

I mean, what the fuck is all that about?

Kontor is probably drunk. The thread could still lead to a nice debate though.
Right?
...
oooh - pretty butterfly !

Kontor is probably drunk. The thread could still lead to a nice debate though.
Right?
...
oooh - pretty butterfly !
I suppose we could put the thread to good use by turning it into another The Babe Thread.

Let me paraphrase: "WAA! Immigrants stealing my Anglo Saxon nation! WAAA! Europeans are all gonna die because without the Almighty United States they'll be attacked by Peru and Godzilla!"

I mean, what the fuck is all that about?

Good to know that I'm not alone in my interpretation.

Good to know that I'm not alone in my interpretation.
If I were alone in that interpretation, I'd be pretty worried. I mean, NSG isn't that crazy.

If I were alone in that interpretation, I'd be pretty worried. I mean, NSG isn't that crazy.

Are kidding? It's a regular loony bin here and LG is the benchmark for that lunacy.

Are kidding? It's a regular loony bin here and LG is the benchmark for that lunacy.
Yeah, but LG is funny crazy. This is Ranting for Dummies: Drunk Conservative Edition crazy.

Let me paraphrase: "WAA! Immigrants stealing my Anglo Saxon nation! WAAA! Europeans are all gonna die because without the Almighty United States they'll be attacked by Peru and Godzilla!"

I mean, what the fuck is all that about?

Dragging in Godzilla, niiice :D

Thats why they're called ILLEGALS. I have no problem with those who immigrate legitmately, pay taxes and follow our laws.
bullshit bullshit bullshit. I personally think thats a good summary of this post.

What "cultural" strain are the illegal immigrants putting on the country?

Yeah, but LG is funny crazy. This is Ranting for Dummies: Drunk Conservative Edition crazy.

Oh sorry, I didn't see the sub header. :D

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right". The dislike and even hatred the two sides feel for each other grows more rabid and intense every year. So, why am I worried the U.S may fall? As Lincoln said "A house divided apon itself cannot stand".

Don't get me wrong, thats not the only reason I think we are headed for disaster. Some of the others reasons are, of course the debt, the hatred of the rest of the world, aimed at us, and the massive cultural strain the illegals are putting on the U.S. If you think about it, this is disaster in the making, but hey at least those whiny Europeans will have to deal with China, Russia and a growing latin america as well as domestic riots and cultural erosion. The safekeeping of the world won't be our problem much longer.:cool:


Wait I almost forgot, those 3'd world dictaors will manage to get their hands on nukes eventually, and without the U.S to deal with them they will use them eventually . Unless of course China or Russia desides to stop them but really, if they start meddling with others affairs, who is to keep them from stopping? It certainly won't be those cowardly Euro's and everyone else will be to weak. I'm not even taking into account the terrorist's! Ain't it a wonderfull world we live in folks? Well, later Ya'll.;)

wow, I love how you manage to put an alarmist spin on just about everything.

snip

If the US did not fall with the turmoil it faced in 1968, then the turmoil of 2008 certainly will not lead to the downfall of the US.

I was not around in 1968, but most of the people of my generation have no idea of historical context and do not realize that today's issues are nowhere near as grave as the issues of 40 years ago were.

If Barack Obama gets assassinated in June and Ron Paul runs on his own ticket and gets shot, then you we can re discuss this issue.

Kontor, Kontor, Kontor... where do I start?

Well, firstly your spelling and grammar is atrocious and therefore lends little to the already thin-on-the-ground piece of trash your argument/point is.

Secondly, blaming immigrants? What do you think the Dutch, the Irish, the British and the countless thousands of non-American people who gave birth to the small, developing yet already populated nation of North America? - long haul visitors who decided to stay because it was pretty? Give me a break

Also, you are a disgrace to America and her people. I am British, but I am ashamed for your fellow Americans (wow, that took a lot, I mean a lot of anti-US abuse has spilled forth from my lips in the past) given the fact that not only have you espoused blatantly pathetic, mis-informed, embarassingly simple views removed from current situation and politics - but you also revel in them.

You describe the inevitable fall of the USA? Well, I beseech thee o great, American NationStates users; USA will fall, if you all lean the way of the Kontor and the idiocy that comprises his political standpoints.

So, word is the sky's falling and this is the thread to discuss it.

So, word is the sky's falling and this is the thread to discuss it.

This crap is like the stuff I read on White Sox Interactive (other board I frequent). On that board our "Sky is Falling Threads" are like this. "OMG!!! I hearz on The Score (sports radio station) that Mark Buehrle is being traded to the Reds!!!" or "OMG!!! Fire Ozzie!!! He wants to trade Konerko!!!"

not supporting Kontors rant, but this caught my eye.

"Divided" ? Most western countries have coalition governments with strong opposition parties that are far wider distributed across the political spectrum than the dems and reps. the point is that the split is divided among various parties in those other western countries. but the point Kontor was trying to make is here in America, (s)he sees a split between two parties which is more dangerious in breaking up a country.

think about it. all strifes that threaten a country isn't the government and many small groups, but the government and one large group.

Bullshit. Utter and total bullshit. Everyone claims that they have no problems with immigrants if they only followed the laws, but look at the vitrol that got spewed when there was talk of simply making them all legal residents and no longer making them illegal immigrants. yep. because Person A who snuck into the country while person B who did is still waiting for the process to admit him.

so here comes Amnesty...

Person A is now a legal resident while person B is still waiting for the legal ok to become a resident/citizen.

No, this whole idea of "it's only because they break the law" rhetoric is a useful tool to hide bigotry and racism, but it falls apart when it becomes clear that nobody who says it has any interest in actually letting them be here legally with any greater ease.I'm for changing the procedure to allow easier admittance, something I've always said. but I'm not for rewarding those who managed to avoid INS illegally while those going through the process are left out.

Meh speculation, but:

"cowardly Euro's"

and where do you suppose the US came from in the first place?
Besides it's probably because the US armed forces have attacked god knows how many countries, and not all for nice reasons. That's why many people hate the US government, that and it has alot of power over other countries.


Hey im not denying Europe WAS a bastion of war and imperialism, but that stopped in the 60's.

We don't assassinate our political rivals or hack their supporters to pieces with machetes. Despite the efforts of wackos in Montana, we don't have guerilla oganizations in the mountains shelling population centers. Political apathy will keep us united. :)

You think?

::::dusts of his soap box and stands on it with great care::


My fellows:


A few points are true and widely knowen.

One: America has been a bully far too long. And as such ~
Two: Is disliked (like all bullies) by most of the other countries.

Hence, I say, PULL OUT ALL Forces from ALL the ... other countries and bring them back to the U.S. :mad:

Sit back and watch the rest of the world deal with themselves. When and I say when, another country asks for our help or hand. Just laugh and say Deal with it. :upyours:

:::gets off his soap box and waits for the flames::::

::::dusts of his soap box and stands on it with great care::


My fellows:


A few points are true and widely knowen.

One: America has been a bully far too long. And as such ~
Two: Is disliked (like all bullies) by most of the other countries.

Hence, I say, PULL OUT ALL Forces from ALL the ... other countries and bring them back to the U.S. :mad:

Sit back and watch the rest of the world deal with themselves. When and I say when, another country asks for our help or hand. Just laugh and say Deal with it. :upyours:

:::gets off his soap box and waits for the flames::::

That would be nice, but it's not going to happen.

::::dusts of his soap box and stands on it with great care:: ...


:::gets off his soap box and waits for the flames::::
So... that whole post was meant as a flamebait..?

::::dusts of his soap box and stands on it with great care::


My fellows:


A few points are true and widely knowen.

One: America has been a bully far too long. And as such ~
Two: Is disliked (like all bullies) by most of the other countries.

Hence, I say, PULL OUT ALL Forces from ALL the ... other countries and bring them back to the U.S. :mad:

Sit back and watch the rest of the world deal with themselves. When and I say when, another country asks for our help or hand. Just laugh and say Deal with it. :upyours:

:::gets off his soap box and waits for the flames::::

*Picks up box of matches, lights one* yeah, and there's more where that came from! approximately another 39!

Hey im not denying Europe WAS a bastion of war and imperialism, but that stopped in the 60's.
Are youy saying that only after 40+ short years, USA is already falling under the responsibilities being the bastion of war and imperialism brings..?

Hard to believe.

Are youy saying that only after 40+ short years, USA is already falling under the responsibilities being the bastion of war and imperialism brings..?

Hard to believe.

Your way of phrasing this question is unintelligible.

Your way of phrasing this question is unintelligible.
True.
I didn't think that would stop you. I'm sorry though.

Hey im not denying Europe WAS a bastion of war and imperialism, but that stopped in the 60's.
Why do I get the feeling you think this is a bad thing?

Hey im not denying Europe WAS a bastion of war and imperialism, but that stopped in the 60's.
Those damned cowardly Europeans, always fighting their neighbours and nations on other continents.

So... that whole post was meant as a flamebait..?

Yeap and you took it :p


It was meant what the post says. It's time for America to stop getting into the worlds business. Stop starting wars and taking over ones others started. Stop giving aid to country leaders that care less about their own people and more about lining their own pockets. Especially since it could be put to better use at home.

It's just time for America to realize that the world is going to do what it wants and let the world do it. Take care of home first.


:::unrolls a charged fire hose from under the soap box and looks for the person with the matches:::;)

Yeap and you took it :p


It was meant what the post says. It's time for America to stop getting into the worlds business. Stop starting wars and taking over ones others started. Stop giving aid to country leaders that care less about their own people and more about lining their own pockets. Especially since it could be put to better use at home.

It's just time for America to realize that the world is going to do what it wants and let the world do it. Take care of home first.


:::unrolls a charged fire hose from under the soap box and looks for the person with the matches:::;)

I agree.

You think?

When I must. *nod*

Bullshit. Utter and total bullshit. Everyone claims that they have no problems with immigrants if they only followed the laws, but look at the vitrol that got spewed when there was talk of simply making them all legal residents and no longer making them illegal immigrants.

No, this whole idea of "it's only because they break the law" rhetoric is a useful tool to hide bigotry and racism, but it falls apart when it becomes clear that nobody who says it has any interest in actually letting them be here legally with any greater ease.

Wow, you're just as ignorant as I remember you being.

Ever since America established sovreignity as a nation, there have been good, honest, hard-working people who have emigrated here to live the "American Dream." Whether that dream is still alive today is irrelevant; What is not is the fact that there are thousands of people living in other countries who appreciate that although it's not perfect, America represents the highest level of freedom a country allows its citizens. That's why these thousands are on lists waiting to get their shot at coming to live here.

The plight of the average Mexican illegal immigrant is truly tragic. Mexico isn't exactly a great place to live, and I can completely see why they come here in the first place; To get a job, make money, and support their family. Unfortunately, they're not waiting their turn like potential immigrants in the rest of the world. Granted, we make it easy for them to come here with lax southern borders and even laxer border security, but still.

My grandparents all emigrated here from countries in Europe. They were hard working, dedicated people just like these illegal immigrants are. While I don't think that we should kick out the illegal immigrants that are here already, I think that border security should be tightened in order to prevent more of them from spilling into our nation.

That doesn't mean I'm discounting the hardships they undergo in their home nation; I really do sympathize with them and can only shake my head at the kind of treatment they get from their government, and the kind of treatment their government gives to people trying to escape into THEIR country. However, they need to wait in line just like everyone else before they can come here and enjoy the freedoms most native-born Americans take for granted.

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right". The dislike and even hatred the two sides feel for each other grows more rabid and intense every year. So, why am I worried the U.S may fall? As Lincoln said "A house divided apon itself cannot stand".

It's from the Bible (Luke 11.17) you moron!

Lincoln said it immediately after Gettysburg, do you think for one moment he meant "we should have a one-party travesty of Democracy" ?

The rest of your OP is even more depressingly stupid, and is discarded.

It's from the Bible (Luke 11.17) you moron!

Lincoln said it immediately after Gettysburg, do you think for one moment he meant "we should have a one-party travesty of Democracy" ?

The rest of your OP is even more depressingly stupid, and is discarded.

Is name calling all you can comeup with? Please, there are people much better at that than you. Stick to what you are good at, if you are good at anything that is.

I was not around in 1968, but most of the people of my generation have no idea of historical context and do not realize that today's issues are nowhere near as grave as the issues of 40 years ago were.

Quite so. People who whine on and on about how the world is doomed are either too young, or too selectively forgetful, to remember what a four minute warning is.

Kontor, I really don't understand this idea you have that Europeans are a bunch of cowards. Are you really of the opinion that a continent that has been scrapping with itself and the rest of the world (usually with a decent amount of success) for the past 3000 years has over night become a bunch of pacifists because this was where most of the destruction wreaked in the last two world wars fell and we don't fancy all that rebuilding again?

Bullshit.

Right....

Kontor, I really don't understand this idea you have that Europeans are a bunch of cowards. Are you really of the opinion that a continent that has been scrapping with itself and the rest of the world (usually with a decent amount of success) for the past 3000 years has over night become a bunch of pacifists because this was where most of the destruction wreaked in the last two world wars fell and we don't fancy all that rebuilding again?

It's the new thing now. In the 60s the cool kids wanted peace. Now the cool kids want war.

Kontor, I really don't understand this idea you have that Europeans are a bunch of cowards. Are you really of the opinion that a continent that has been scrapping with itself and the rest of the world (usually with a decent amount of success) for the past 3000 years has over night become a bunch of pacifists because this was where most of the destruction wreaked in the last two world wars fell and we don't fancy all that rebuilding again?

I think they have been (cowards) for the past 40ish years. The Europeans took it way to far in the opposite direction before that, why can't they find a middle ground?

Is name calling all you can comeup with?

No. When you've cooled down from being called a moron, you might notice that there is a second sentence. If you read that carefully, you will see that it quite explicitly debunks your first paragraph. It points out that your appeal to the authority of Lincoln fails, by taking the quote out of context. It also characterises your doom-and-gloom about an imaginary division of the US into Left and Right -- characterizes it accurately for what it is, anti-democratic defeatism.

Please, there are people much better at that than you. Stick to what you are good at, if you are good at anything that is.

I should take advice from you in how to ad hominem?

I don't think so. Not on the basis of that effort.

I support illegal immigration into our country until we make it affordable for the poor people who really need to come here.

The process is way to expensive and forces people to take the illegal route so that they can find a way to feed, cloth and house their families struggling to get by back in their home countries.

That's also why I support making those illegals who already came here legal.

I think they have been (cowards) for the past 40ish years. The Europeans took it way to far in the opposite direction before that, why can't they find a middle ground?

So what actions have we taken in the last 40ish years that make us cowards? Do you have any examples or is it just a stereotype you believe in?

I support illegal immigration into our country until we make it affordable for the poor people who really need to come here.

The process is way to expensive and forces people to take the illegal route so that they can find a way to feed, cloth and house their families struggling to get by back in their home countries.

That's also why I support making those illegals who already came here legal.

It's mexico's job to take care of their OWN citizens not ours.

So what actions have we taken in the last 40ish years that make us cowards? Do you have any examples or is it just a stereotype you believe in?

I'll get back to you in about 40 min, I have to go, but ill come back to this thread and answer you.

It's mexico's job to take care of their OWN citizens not ours.

So you don't support ANY immigration, even legal immigration or should only rich people immigrate here?

When the US falls, and it will because it's a given that nations rise and fall, it will not be because of the diverse and often diametrically opposed opinions of it's inhabitants. It will be because those inhabitants steadfastly refuse to base any of their opinions on facts. From the extreme right to the extreme left, every opinion is firmly based on other opinions and on wishful thiinking.

Of course, this is true of every other country in the world as well.

So what actions have we taken in the last 40ish years that make us cowards? Do you have any examples or is it just a stereotype you believe in?
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. First, who is this fictitious 'we'? - Kontor's nebulous "Euro's"...

Is it 'old' Europe? Just the old colonial powers within Europe? The EU? Just those that were in the EEC? Is Scandinavia included? The new entrants into the EU?

Inquiring minds want to know (or, at least, would enjoy the giggle)

I think they have been (cowards) for the past 40ish years. The Europeans took it way to far in the opposite direction before that, why can't they find a middle ground?

A middle ground between war and peace? Why wouldn't one just want peace?

It's mexico's job to take care of their OWN citizens not ours.

They are already living in this country and working here, they are our citizens now.

We also have an obligation to help those that we can. I'm not talking about full intervention everywhere, but I also don't mean turning our backs on those who need us.

I support illegal immigration into our country until we make it affordable for the poor people who really need to come here.

The process is way to expensive and forces people to take the illegal route so that they can find a way to feed, cloth and house their families struggling to get by back in their home countries.

That's also why I support making those illegals who already came here legal.
Fine and dandy. But let's be honest about what the costs are to the American public. Let's create a special entitlement for Mexican and other Latin immigrants and call it foreign aid.

After we do that for a while, it's likely that we'll find this isn't the best way of helping the Mexican people and we'll probably just resort to the tried and true grants of developmental assistance that we give to so many other countries.

Wow, you're just as ignorant as I remember you being.

Ever since America established sovreignity as a nation, there have been good, honest, hard-working people who have emigrated here to live the "American Dream." Whether that dream is still alive today is irrelevant; What is not is the fact that there are thousands of people living in other countries who appreciate that although it's not perfect, America represents the highest level of freedom a country allows its citizens. That's why these thousands are on lists waiting to get their shot at coming to live here.

The plight of the average Mexican illegal immigrant is truly tragic. Mexico isn't exactly a great place to live, and I can completely see why they come here in the first place; To get a job, make money, and support their family. Unfortunately, they're not waiting their turn like potential immigrants in the rest of the world. Granted, we make it easy for them to come here with lax southern borders and even laxer border security, but still.

My grandparents all emigrated here from countries in Europe. They were hard working, dedicated people just like these illegal immigrants are. While I don't think that we should kick out the illegal immigrants that are here already, I think that border security should be tightened in order to prevent more of them from spilling into our nation.

That doesn't mean I'm discounting the hardships they undergo in their home nation; I really do sympathize with them and can only shake my head at the kind of treatment they get from their government, and the kind of treatment their government gives to people trying to escape into THEIR country. However, they need to wait in line just like everyone else before they can come here and enjoy the freedoms most native-born Americans take for granted.You are the first post I have read that makes any sense on the issue of illegal immigration. I believe that our borders need to be secured and the laws against hiring illegal immigrants need to be enforced. I also think the laws that govern immigration need to be revamped so the process to come here legally is speed up.

Click Stand;13356202']They are already living in this country and working here, they are our citizens now.I think there's more to Citizenship than just being in a place and working. or does that make all the American troops living and working overseas that country's citizens? :p

Click Stand;13356202']We also have an obligation to help those that we can. I'm not talking about full intervention everywhere, but I also don't mean turning our backs on those who need us. like our own poor, unemployed and poverty stricken?

When I was last in Mexico, I saw billboards there offering easy to get, big money loans to people in the U.S.

I think they have been (cowards) for the past 40ish years. The Europeans took it way to far in the opposite direction before that, why can't they find a middle ground?
You mean like that one country that balances from imperialism to isolationism?

I think there's more to Citizenship than just being in a place and working. or does that make all the American troops living and working overseas that country's citizens? :p

That's just mischievous!

Are illegal immigrants paid by a foreign government to work (or serve, in your analogy) in the US? No, they're paid by US employers, thus existing entirely within the domestic economy.

I know your analogy was intended in jest ... but not everyone gets things like that.

I for see the downfall of the US based on a combination of weak leadership, continued perceived polarization of the country on party lines, combined with the inability to handle the effects of climate change on the nation, and a dying economy.

Fine and dandy. But let's be honest about what the costs are to the American public. Let's create a special entitlement for Mexican and other Latin immigrants and call it foreign aid.

After we do that for a while, it's likely that we'll find this isn't the best way of helping the Mexican people and we'll probably just resort to the tried and true grants of developmental assistance that we give to so many other countries.

What costs to the American public are you talking about? What entitlement programs do you want to start? I'd rather we create an easy access point where we can track all who enter and give them information on where to go for jobs and housing. Fast track them to legal status if we can verify their information in their own country and let things work themselves out. They'll have identification cards, pay taxes and have their DNA's sampled and fingerprints put on record.

I don't see why you want to put all kinds of money into something that hasn't shown to solve the illegal immigration problem.

That's just mischievous!

Are illegal immigrants paid by a foreign government to work (or serve, in your analogy) in the US? No, they're paid by US employers, thus existing entirely within the domestic economy.

I know your analogy was intended in jest ... but not everyone gets things like that.

partially in jest. :cool:

but realize this. you have alot of US citizens working overseas. yes even military FAMILIES taking local jobs in the local cities/town. Does that still make them citizens of that country?

it takes more than just living in a country and being paid by that country's economy to make them a CITIZEN of that country.

NERVUN (I believe) is an American Citizen working in Japan and married to a local Japanese, yet I doubt that alone makes him a Citizen of Japan.

the University of Hawaii has several overseas students that live and work here while they go to school. They are NOT Amercian citizens by that fact alone.

The US should look forward to downfall!

I mean, look at Britain. They once had the greatest empire on Earth, they fell pretty damn fast by (only just) winning a war ... and it ain't such a bad place now.

Sure, the glory is gone ... but so is much of the responsibility. It's not like Britain disappeared into the sea like Atlantis.

So, US, do it the British way and you'll be fine. Not with a bang, but a whimper :p

The US should look forward to downfall!

I mean, look at Britain. They once had the greatest empire on Earth, they fell pretty damn fast by (only just) winning a war ... and it ain't such a bad place now.

Sure, the glory is gone ... but so is much of the responsibility. It's not like Britain disappeared into the sea like Atlantis.

So, US, do it the British way and you'll be fine. Not with a bang, but a whimper :p
Although we are still telling ourselves that we are still a major world power, by clinging to the coat-tails of a more powerful nation.

Although we are still telling ourselves that we are still a major world power, by clinging to the coat-tails of a more powerful nation.

Well, actually, you guys technically are. You're one of the only states on Earth with both nuclear weapons and a strong blue-water navy, and have one of its biggest and most developed economies. Even China doesn't have the kind of projection power the UK currently possesses, and it has an economy nearly three times as large with a population more than ten times higher.

(Personally, I think nation-states in general will gradually fade as globalization erodes much of the reasoning behind nationalism in the coming years).

like our own poor, unemployed and poverty stricken?

considering our unemployment rate is very low I think we have the ability to help without turning our backs on our own people.

Note that this is a bit simpler than it really is, but I didn't come into this excuse for a thread to fight over the economy of the U.S. All I wanted to do is jump on the attack Kontor wagon.

And about the whole citizen thing: I guess our definitions of citizen differ.

It doesn't take living or working in a country to be called a citizen of that country. It merely takes the govt. granting the title.

I for see the downfall of the US based on a combination of weak leadership, continued perceived polarization of the country on party lines, combined with the inability to handle the effects of climate change on the nation, and a dying economy.

The downfall in the US resides exclusively within the economy and our shitty foreign policy. As we continue to isolate foreign governments, we can expect a fair deal of animosity from the foreign powers ranging from dislike to raw hatred. As our economy stagnates and wears away, the social forces that hold the US together disappear. I think we can expect significantly higher poverty in the future, with riots, violence, and extremism farther down the line.

partially in jest. :cool:

but realize this. you have alot of US citizens working overseas. yes even military FAMILIES taking local jobs in the local cities/town. Does that still make them citizens of that country?

it takes more than just living in a country and being paid by that country's economy to make them a CITIZEN of that country.

Oh, I see what you mean. You're talking about the legal status of Citizen, conferred by the government. Differently in different countries.

Sure, but the tricky thing is to define citizenship without that. I would say that when a person has benefited a country to a certain extent (say by serving in the military or by paying above the average rate of income tax, for some number of years) they should be entitled to citizenship regardless of who their parents were, where they were born, charitable compensation for past hardship, or any of those government benchmarks of Citizenship.

In the example of the military spouse who works a local job, I suppose you'd look at their commitment to the host country as well as the job they hold. Do they plan to live there forever, even if their spouse gets posted elsewhere? Are they really supporting themselves by the local job they hold, rather than being mainly dependent on the military income?

If the answer to those two was "yes" I'd say they should be a citizen if they want such legal status. (They may not, if that means giving up their native citizenship.) The decision as to whether they are "committed" to the host country is a bit hard to pin down, you'd look for years of residency, commitments like local friendships or participation in the community.

Well, governments have their work cut out making standards of citizenship, which is probably why it is so hard to LOSE citizenship you were born with.

A middle ground between war and peace? Why wouldn't one just want peace?

Failing to defend ones self is peace?

Click Stand;13356320']Note that this is a bit simpler than it really is, but I didn't come into this excuse for a thread to fight over the economy of the U.S. All I wanted to do is jump on the attack Kontor wagon.

.
.
.
Ugh, this Troll tastes terrible!
You feel wise! You must have been very observant.

You mean like that one country that balances from imperialism to isolationism?

Isolationism? I wish WE were like that. Isolationism and failing to defend ones self are different. I wish we were isolationist, however if someone were to threaten or attack us we should respond, not give in.

Well, what would better be said is right now we have one critical choice to make with two possible outcomes.

1. We become an imperalist nation, sending troops across the world to conquer foreign countries for markets and resources.

2. We become a peaceful power which enters a long age of our former power slowly leaving us and going to some other nation(s); China, India, a United Europe, and/or a recently empowered Russia.

Well, actually, you guys technically are. You're one of the only states on Earth with both nuclear weapons and a strong blue-water navy, and have one of its biggest and most developed economies. Even China doesn't have the kind of projection power the UK currently possesses, and it has an economy nearly three times as large with a population more than ten times higher.

(Personally, I think nation-states in general will gradually fade as globalization erodes much of the reasoning behind nationalism in the coming years).

Hooray!

;) . Someone's going to have to do that Navy stuff, though, unless pirates can just be considered part of the global economy ... I say that as Masters of the Universe, we award the contract to the British Navy, who will at least keep the tradition of foul swearing alive.

I knew I would not be disappointed by the OP

Hey, here's a thought. Instead of trying to rule the world, the US could build giant space-ships and fuck off in the general direction of Alpha Centauri, never to be heard from again. Can't get more Isolationist than that ...

Hey im not denying Europe WAS a bastion of war and imperialism, but that stopped in the 60's.

That's strange, I thought Germany reunited in 1990. And wasn't the Balkans War kind of like a war as well?

That's strange, I thought Germany reunited in 1990. And wasn't the Balkans War kind of like a war as well?

I would hardly call Germany the bastion of war and imperialism.

I would hardly call Germany the bastion of war and imperialism.

No, but the two halves of Germany were in a state of constant rivalry (as was the rest of Europe) until the early 90s. And then after that we had wars between the former Yugoslav states and civil conflicts in Moldova, Georgia and Chechnya. Europe has not been free from war since the 60s as Kontor claimed.

Hey, here's a thought. Instead of trying to rule the world, the US could build giant space-ships and fuck off in the general direction of Alpha Centauri, never to be heard from again. Can't get more Isolationist than that ...

Man, you've ruined what we had in mind for the French :p

...Personally, I think nation-states in general will gradually fade as globalization erodes much of the reasoning behind nationalism in the coming years.

In a capitalist world the notion of free movement of capital is a fundamental precept. The obvious corollary is that there should be free movement of labour. As globalisation grows the pressure on nation states to relax restrictions will also grow.

Which is just another nail in the coffin of nation states. (I say hooray, too).

Look at it another way. No-one complains about the free movement of labour within Australia where I live. (Currently people are moving to Brisbane, Perth and Melbourne in record numbers; Sydney, Adelaide and Hobart are in relative decline.) I imagine the same is true in the US. Why not just take a larger, more global view. Yeah, I know that sudden relaxation of border controls would cause havoc but, in the long term, I think that's the way the world will go.

That's strange, I thought Germany reunited in 1990. And wasn't the Balkans War kind of like a war as well?

I'm not counting civil war.

I'm not counting civil war.

Of course! Civil wars aren't real wars. The American War of Indpepence, American Civil War, English Civil War, French Revolution - not real wars. More like Diet Wars, or War Lite(tm).

No, but the two halves of Germany were in a state of constant rivalry (as was the rest of Europe) until the early 90s. And then after that we had wars between the former Yugoslav states and civil conflicts in Moldova, Georgia and Chechnya. Europe has not been free from war since the 60s as Kontor claimed.

I claimed no such thing.

Failing to defend ones self is peace?

I wasn't aware that Europe had been at war recently and suffered greatly due to failing to defend itself. But please, feel free to enlighten me about this war I missed.

Of course! Civil wars aren't real wars. The American War of Indpepence, American Civil War, English Civil War, French Revolution - not real wars. More like Diet Wars, or War Lite(tm).

Eastern Europe is not really the Europe I was mentioning, but hey if you need specifics, I mean Western Europe.

Click Stand;13356320']considering our unemployment rate is very low I think we have the ability to help without turning our backs on our own people. so is turinging your back on the 1% of those who need help ok to help another person who snuck into the country illegally? and what of those who need help who came into the country Legally, would they be prioritzed even lower?

Click Stand;13356320']Note that this is a bit simpler than it really is, but I didn't come into this excuse for a thread to fight over the economy of the U.S. All I wanted to do is jump on the attack Kontor wagon. I'm not questioning your "attack Kontor" participation. just the tool you used. ;)

you called upon the US saying it HAS to help others in need. noble and worthy in and of itself. but USA cannot support other countries by itself.

Click Stand;13356320']And about the whole citizen thing: I guess our definitions of citizen differ. a citizen of a country is clearly defined by the law of that country. by saying "they're OUR citizens now" means they are Citizens of the USA. I'm going by what is defined by law.

Oh, I see what you mean. You're talking about the legal status of Citizen, conferred by the government. Differently in different countries.

Sure, but the tricky thing is to define citizenship without that. I would say that when a person has benefited a country to a certain extent (say by serving in the military or by paying above the average rate of income tax, for some number of years) they should be entitled to citizenship regardless of who their parents were, where they were born, charitable compensation for past hardship, or any of those government benchmarks of Citizenship.

In the example of the military spouse who works a local job, I suppose you'd look at their commitment to the host country as well as the job they hold. Do they plan to live there forever, even if their spouse gets posted elsewhere? Are they really supporting themselves by the local job they hold, rather than being mainly dependent on the military income?

If the answer to those two was "yes" I'd say they should be a citizen if they want such legal status. (They may not, if that means giving up their native citizenship.) The decision as to whether they are "committed" to the host country is a bit hard to pin down, you'd look for years of residency, commitments like local friendships or participation in the community.

Well, governments have their work cut out making standards of citizenship, which is probably why it is so hard to LOSE citizenship you were born with.actually the Government clearly defines a citizen of a country, I think you should look it up. Each government is different but then each Government has the right to define who is their citizen.

I claimed no such thing.

You said that Europe was not a 'bastion of war' since the 60s and yet as recently as 15 years ago a war raged in the Balkans which devastated a region and saw some horrific war crimes. At the turn of the twentieth century the NATO European nations carried out a strategic bombing campaign against another European country - Serbia. Not to mention the continued existence of armed separatist movements in Moldova, Georgia and Chechnya who still control parts of those countries terriotries. Your characterisation of Europe and being a bastion of war before the 60s less so in modern times is fallacious considering that far more conflicts were fought in Europe in the 1990s than in the 1950s and 1960s.

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right". The dislike and even hatred the two sides feel for each other grows more rabid and intense every year. So, why am I worried the U.S may fall? As Lincoln said "A house divided apon itself cannot stand".


If you ask the left and media matters they claim the right are the massive minority and america is united behind a far-left progressive agenda. Of course they have claimed its been that way for decades, which wouldn't explain why republicans win so much and so many states ban gay marriage. I will believe voter outcomes over BS polls taken by 800 people.

so is turinging your back on the 1% of those who need help ok to help another person who snuck into the country illegally? and what of those who need help who came into the country Legally, would they be prioritzed even lower?

snuck is such an ugly word, how about mismanegmant of travel in the views of U.S law and dominion.:). For the rest of the point, what I am saying is that they should not be left unhelped if they are in this country and need assistance. Hunting them down and deporting them is not the right thing to do, and neither is denying them work and shelter. Don't misunderstand this as saying that we should let all in who want to come in. We should strengthen our borders, but make it easier to become a citizen and let those already here stay.

I'm not questioning your "attack Kontor" participation. just the tool you used. ;)

Good because I can't have my attack Kontor experience questioned later on.

you called upon the US saying it HAS to help others in need. noble and worthy in and of itself. but USA cannot support other countries by itself.

I'm not talking about supporting other countries, just those who are in this country, or want to legally come here. This was my true intent and if my previous posts were misleading then disregard them.

a citizen of a country is clearly defined by the law of that country. by saying "they're OUR citizens now" means they are Citizens of the USA. I'm going by what is defined by law.

actually the Government clearly defines a citizen of a country, I think you should look it up. Each government is different but then each Government has the right to define who is their citizen.

Sure the U.S doesn't define them as citizens, I rarely agree with the government. Once again my point was to say that they are a citizen in my eyes and ought to be one in reality also.

See look what you made me do, I could have spent this time eating.:(

To everyone who's seriously advocated isolationism:

It's a nice thought. Stock up on arms, guarantee freedoms for citizens, and focus on the United States first. Unfortunately, history has shown us that this particular ideology hasn't caught on very well, nor has it served us well in the past. The United States of the 1930s-40s was about as isolationist as you can get, and still participate in a global economy. There was a very strong isolationist movement within the US, which was particularly vocal about keeping us out of WWII. And that's what it sounds like Kontor and others have been saying: bring all the troops home, hide behind our carrier fleets and our armies, and leave the nasty business of international relations to someone else, because we're tired of it.

Aside from the rather petulant attitude that this position carries, it isn't a sound foreign policy either. Without American aid in the late '30s through 1941, Britain would almost certainly have fallen to some variant of Operation Sealion. With all respect to the British readers here, (and I have plenty) even with an empire in tow they would have been hard-pressed to defend Fortress Britain from Fortress Europe without massive overseas supply convoys that simply sent more transports than the Germans could sink. Obviously, there is no Hitler in the world right now that requires a coalition of allied nations to defeat, but there could be. And like it or not, the US is currently the only nation with a military capable of global projection. By that simple fact, it's our responsibility to remain open to the option of using it.

Yes, we might have to send American boys to die for another nation's freedom. But that's a noble thing, dirty and awful as it is in reality. I don't like current American politics any more than the rest of you, I think Iraq was turned from a total victory to a disaster through our own mismanagement, and we ought to learn from this that we really shouldn't be invading countries just because we can. On the other hand, there's no reason to deny people help-- economic or military-- just because they don't have an American passport. You know where our soldiers could be doing some good? Darfur, where people have been calling for the United States to intervene for the past few years. The African Union is doing its best, but the fact is that the AU soldiers don't have the supplies or equipment to hold ground in Sudan. That's where the US should have its soldiers, where they've been asked for and where they could prevent a genocide.

Also, we're sort of stuck in the role of world police at the moment, and I contend that the world has never been stable without a policeman. We hear about the Pax Romana, the Pax Brittanica... well, we're living in the Pax Americana, and I hope not the end of it. In the inter-empire years, we've had such cultural flowerings as the Dark Ages, the Wars of Religion, and the Crusades. Empires go bad in the end because their rulers begin to take their power for granted and eventually abuse it. In their prime, Empires promote trade, cultural exchange and all sorts of discovery. Remember, it was the British Empire of the C18th that perfected the longitudinal system, began to experiment with the market economy (rather than mercantilism) and opened nations like India and China to trade. It was the British Empire of the 1920s, 30s and 40s that subjected India to humiliating cash-cropping and abuse, used Africa for its resources and turned Burma from a relatively peaceful nation to one seething with dissent and warfare. I'm no fan of the system, but it's been repeated over and over again, and without a paradigm-shift in human affairs it will continue.

So either we have the paradigm-shift, the end of the nation-state and the rise of something else, or we continue to have empires. And by that token, I think that even the current Pax Americana is better than what would replace it. Not many nations can claim the population, industry and expansionist views necessary to be the next enforcer of the Pax, but many look to China or Russia. Do we really want either of those dictating global policy? China is propping up both Kim Jong-Il and the Burmese (I disdain the use of the term 'Myanmar') junta in the name of 'local security'. Russia's Vladimir Putin is giving Stalin's historical treatment a whitewash-- this to the man who killed more people than Hitler! Honestly, for all its deficiencies, the Pax Americana ain't so bad.

Eastern Europe is not really the Europe I was mentioning, but hey if you need specifics, I mean Western Europe.

British, Italian and Spanish troops were sent into Iraq. Although it should be stated that failure to join in the idiocy of the Iraq war is not a sign of cowardice but a sign of common sense. Iraq possessed no threat to Europe and it was in the interest of no European nation to join the Americans in their uninspired neo-colonial crusade.

There have been other wars in which European powers have been involved in over the last fourty years. The Algerian War of Independence. The Portguese Colonial War. Cyprus. The Falklands war. The First Gulf War. Afghanistan.

I am not suggesting that European participation in any of these wars was a good thing but rather pointing to the crux of your argument. This seems to be a rant that France and Germany dared to defy the US by refusing to send their troops into a sand box of sectarian violence for no good reason.

Eastern Europe is not really the Europe I was mentioning, but hey if you need specifics, I mean Western Europe.

So we've gone from "Europe has not been a bastion of war since the 1960s" to "Western Europe has not been involved in an armed conflict excluding civil war since the 1960s". Yep, I'd say that the goalposts have been moved sufficiently far to now consider them outside of the stadium.

Of course, this is only including wars fought between Western European nations. Plenty of wars have been fought by Western European nations in the Falklands, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq...

You said that Europe was not a 'bastion of war' since the 60s and yet as recently as 15 years ago a war raged in the Balkans which devastated a region and saw some horrific war crimes. At the turn of the twentieth century the NATO European nations carried out a strategic bombing campaign against another European country - Serbia. Not to mention the continued existence of armed separatist movements in Moldova, Georgia and Chechnya who still control parts of those countries terriotries. Your characterisation of Europe and being a bastion of war before the 60s less so in modern times is fallacious considering that far more conflicts were fought in Europe in the 1990s than in the 1950s and 1960s.

As I said before I rectified the misunderstanding, I was referring to Western Europe not former Soviet land.


Edit: How did the talk get to europe, I was talking of the inevitable fall of the U.S, not them old Euro's.

As I said before I rectified the misunderstanding, I was referring to Western Europe not former Soviet land.


Edit: How did the talk get to europe, I was talking of the inevitable fall of the U.S, not them old Euro's.

Maybe because you could did not make it past the OP without being insulting towards them

Maybe because you could did not make it past the OP without being insulting towards them

Please rephrase your rather confusing comment.

To everyone who's seriously advocated isolationism:

It's a nice thought. Stock up on arms, guarantee freedoms for citizens, and focus on the United States first. Unfortunately, history has shown us that this particular ideology hasn't caught on very well, nor has it served us well in the past.

*snip*

So either we have the paradigm-shift, the end of the nation-state and the rise of something else, or we continue to have empires. And by that token, I think that even the current Pax Americana is better than what would replace it. Not many nations can claim the population, industry and expansionist views necessary to be the next enforcer of the Pax, but many look to China or Russia. Do we really want either of those dictating global policy? China is propping up both Kim Jong-Il and the Burmese (I disdain the use of the term 'Myanmar') junta in the name of 'local security'. Russia's Vladimir Putin is giving Stalin's historical treatment a whitewash-- this to the man who killed more people than Hitler! Honestly, for all its deficiencies, the Pax Americana ain't so bad.

"Yes, yes, but what else have the Romans done for us?" ;)

Seriously, good post there. All I'd add is that those Paxes were best for the core citizens of the empires, not so much fun for new conquests and vassal states.

Please rephrase your rather confusing comment.

If you did not want the topic to wander at times to Europe it would have been best not insulting them in the original post it was just begging for people to end up in part discussing the virtues or problems with Europe

Well, yes. That's the problem with imperialism, and that's why I'm not really advocating it as a 'fix-all'. On the other hand, it's the more realistic of our two choices, and reality isn't very nice to the people on the fringes.

If you did not want the topic to wander at times to Europe it would have been best not insulting them in the original post it was just begging for people to end up in part discussing the virtues or problems with Europe

Yep.

You said that Europe was not a 'bastion of war' since the 60s and yet as recently as 15 years ago a war raged in the Balkans which devastated a region and saw some horrific war crimes. At the turn of the twentieth century the NATO European nations carried out a strategic bombing campaign against another European country - Serbia. Not to mention the continued existence of armed separatist movements in Moldova, Georgia and Chechnya who still control parts of those countries terriotries. Your characterisation of Europe and being a bastion of war before the 60s less so in modern times is fallacious considering that far more conflicts were fought in Europe in the 1990s than in the 1950s and 1960s.As I said before I rectified the misunderstanding, I was referring to Western Europe not former Soviet land.


Edit: How did the talk get to europe, I was talking of the inevitable fall of the U.S, not them old Euro's.Maybe because you could did not make it past the OP without being insulting towards them

Please rephrase your rather confusing comment.

Does that help? Here, let me quote a bit of the OP:


*snip supposed causes of US fall*
If you think about it, this is disaster in the making, but hey at least those whiny Europeans will have to deal with China, Russia and a growing latin america as well as domestic riots and cultural erosion. The safekeeping of the world won't be our problem much longer.:cool:
*snip speculation*
It certainly won't be those cowardly Euro's and everyone else will be to weak.

Uh, I feel dirty just quoting it. Hope this helps with your "confusion."

Click Stand;13356606']snuck is such an ugly word, how about mismanegmant of travel in the views of U.S law and dominion.:). err... "failed to pay the admission fee"? :p
Click Stand;13356606']For the rest of the point, what I am saying is that they should not be left unhelped if they are in this country and need assistance. but how much help should they get and should they get more than those trying to come in using established procedures?

Click Stand;13356606']Hunting them down and deporting them is not the right thing to do, and neither is denying them work and shelter. so you would reward those who cheat and avoid the laws and punish those who do follow the laws and procedures?

Click Stand;13356606']Don't misunderstand this as saying that we should let all in who want to come in. We should strengthen our borders, but make it easier to become a citizen and let those already here stay.I'm for making it easier to come in. but I'm not for letting those who bypassed the system get rewarded while there are those waiting in the que.

Click Stand;13356606']Good because I can't have my attack Kontor experience questioned later on. Just as I would like people to know that I am not arguing on Kontor's side. ;)

Click Stand;13356606']I'm not talking about supporting other countries, just those who are in this country, or want to legally come here. This was my true intent and if my previous posts were misleading then disregard them. however, as more and more people from improverished contries like Mexico, Phillipines and such move to USA though means not approved by the US Government because of sucky conditions back home. we are supporting that government... especially if the majority of the money earned is sent back home to their families.

Click Stand;13356606']Sure the U.S doesn't define them as citizens, I rarely agree with the government. Once again my point was to say that they are a citizen in my eyes and ought to be one in reality also. and that's fine. but you can't say the USA has an OBLIGATION to help them because they are Citizens of the USA. I agree that they should be helped because they need it, but sometimes the best way to help them is to send them home where they are then forced to improve conditions at home.

How many decades has people come into this country for better jobs and pay?
How has the Government of Mexico and other nations worked to improve their countries economy while the less fortunate are coming to the USA through unapproved and often dangerous means?
How loudly did Mexico complain when the USA revealed plans to tighten borders between Mexico and the USA? why would they complain unless they want workers to go to the USA by any means possible to send money back to Mexico?
Isn't it sad that the Government of Mexico is more concerned about the ease for their people to enter the USA and not the condition of their economy?
(I mention Mexico because I didn't hear any such protests from other countries when the USA made this announcement. EDIT: just realized that the only countries directly affected by tightneing of borders on the CONTINENTAL US is Canada and Mexico. :headbang: )

Click Stand;13356606']See look what you made me do, I could have spent this time eating.:( and I need to go home... :( tomorrow then? :p

Does that help? Here, let me quote a bit of the OP:



Uh, I feel dirty just quoting it. Hope this helps with your "confusion."

Yes, I insulted Europe and I am not sorry about it, but that is not what the post is about.

Yep.

Then why are you confused as to how the conversation got there?

Yes, I insulted Europe and I am not sorry about it, but that is not what the post is about.

Well, if you're pleading "confusion" when what you really mean is "ha ha you fell for the flamebait" ... then why should anyone give a rat's arse what your post is about?

Well, if you're pleading "confusion" when what you really mean is "ha ha you fell for the flamebait" ... then why should anyone give a rat's arse what your post is about?

Ok, then go away if you want, no one is keeping you here.

Then why are you confused as to how the conversation got there?

Not so much confused as disappointed that you are not mature enough to handle keeping a topic on track.

-Snip-

You're not tricking me again like you did last time, I refuse to get into this thread, no matter how many times I may come back. Your time spent arguing with me is greatly appreciated and has certainly made me think about my position, but I have to leave it at that.

Okay this time I'm leaving for realz.

I find it quite funny to see American's raging on about their own country's fall. Kinda a weird state of affairs with that one.

Not so much confused as disappointed that you are not mature enough to handle keeping a topic on track.
The topic started off track ... and whats this me thing ... I was not discussing the virtues of Europe

Wait I almost forgot, those 3'd world dictaors will manage to get their hands on nukes eventually, and without the U.S to deal with them they will use them eventually . Unless of course China or Russia desides to stop them but really, if they start meddling with others affairs, who is to keep them from stopping? It certainly won't be those cowardly Euro's and everyone else will be to weak. I'm not even taking into account the terrorist's! Ain't it a wonderfull world we live in folks? Well, later Ya'll.;)

Let me see if I understand this.

It's the USA's duty to stop third world dictators from getting nuclear weapons.

When China and Russia do the same, they're 'meddling with others affairs' and there will be no one to stop them from taking over the world.

I'm seeing some slight problems here...

To everyone who's seriously advocated isolationism:

It's a nice thought. Stock up on arms, guarantee freedoms for citizens, and focus on the United States first. Unfortunately, history has shown us that this particular ideology hasn't caught on very well, nor has it served us well in the past. The United States of the 1930s-40s was about as isolationist as you can get, and still participate in a global economy. There was a very strong isolationist movement within the US, which was particularly vocal about keeping us out of WWII. And that's what it sounds like Kontor and others have been saying: bring all the troops home, hide behind our carrier fleets and our armies, and leave the nasty business of international relations to someone else, because we're tired of it.

Aside from the rather petulant attitude that this position carries, it isn't a sound foreign policy either. Without American aid in the late '30s through 1941, Britain would almost certainly have fallen to some variant of Operation Sealion. With all respect to the British readers here, (and I have plenty) even with an empire in tow they would have been hard-pressed to defend Fortress Britain from Fortress Europe without massive overseas supply convoys that simply sent more transports than the Germans could sink. Obviously, there is no Hitler in the world right now that requires a coalition of allied nations to defeat, but there could be. And like it or not, the US is currently the only nation with a military capable of global projection. By that simple fact, it's our responsibility to remain open to the option of using it.

Yes, we might have to send American boys to die for another nation's freedom. But that's a noble thing, dirty and awful as it is in reality. I don't like current American politics any more than the rest of you, I think Iraq was turned from a total victory to a disaster through our own mismanagement, and we ought to learn from this that we really shouldn't be invading countries just because we can. On the other hand, there's no reason to deny people help-- economic or military-- just because they don't have an American passport. You know where our soldiers could be doing some good? Darfur, where people have been calling for the United States to intervene for the past few years. The African Union is doing its best, but the fact is that the AU soldiers don't have the supplies or equipment to hold ground in Sudan. That's where the US should have its soldiers, where they've been asked for and where they could prevent a genocide.

Also, we're sort of stuck in the role of world police at the moment, and I contend that the world has never been stable without a policeman. We hear about the Pax Romana, the Pax Brittanica... well, we're living in the Pax Americana, and I hope not the end of it. In the inter-empire years, we've had such cultural flowerings as the Dark Ages, the Wars of Religion, and the Crusades. Empires go bad in the end because their rulers begin to take their power for granted and eventually abuse it. In their prime, Empires promote trade, cultural exchange and all sorts of discovery. Remember, it was the British Empire of the C18th that perfected the longitudinal system, began to experiment with the market economy (rather than mercantilism) and opened nations like India and China to trade. It was the British Empire of the 1920s, 30s and 40s that subjected India to humiliating cash-cropping and abuse, used Africa for its resources and turned Burma from a relatively peaceful nation to one seething with dissent and warfare. I'm no fan of the system, but it's been repeated over and over again, and without a paradigm-shift in human affairs it will continue.

So either we have the paradigm-shift, the end of the nation-state and the rise of something else, or we continue to have empires. And by that token, I think that even the current Pax Americana is better than what would replace it. Not many nations can claim the population, industry and expansionist views necessary to be the next enforcer of the Pax, but many look to China or Russia. Do we really want either of those dictating global policy? China is propping up both Kim Jong-Il and the Burmese (I disdain the use of the term 'Myanmar') junta in the name of 'local security'. Russia's Vladimir Putin is giving Stalin's historical treatment a whitewash-- this to the man who killed more people than Hitler! Honestly, for all its deficiencies, the Pax Americana ain't so bad.

Excellent post. I have held for a while that the US is obligated to act as the world's policeman based on its powerful military and global reach.

That is a good post, and I must say I am stunned by it. I hesitate to do what you say we should and need to do, as it all it does is get us crap all the time, and it makes us seem like power-hungry idiots.

Ouch. Nice one, Ifrean. ^^

Kinda getting sick of the European bashing. One does not throw stones, when one's house is glass, and has too many holes as it is already.

Not so much confused as disappointed that you are not mature enough to handle keeping a topic on track.

Compared to the maturity it took to suppress your urge to insult Europe. Well done on that, by the......oh wait. Ooops, premature congratulations there.

Ok, then go away if you want, no one is keeping you here.

In your dreams!

It's one of the miracles of NSG, that a completely wrongheaded, trollish and moronic OP can still attract good posts.

If you think all the posts in this thread are about the bold hypothesis put forward in your Oinkiginal Post, you really can't read very well.

I'll be here, making fun of your posts, until such time as you start taking seriously the huge issues you are speaking of.

Here's where you get all confused ...
Sorry about that, I can only dumb it down so far ... :p

===========

Not so much confused as disappointed that you are not mature enough to handle keeping a topic on track.

Oh, Kontor is disappointed. Let us all shed a tear for the Crocodile Tear boy who brought us this:

If you think about it, this is disaster in the making, but hey *snip*
Ain't it a wonderfull world we live in folks?

Fuck the USA, fuck the Euros, kill 'em all and let evolution sort them out ... but shit, we might have disappointed Kontor!

Shit no, I better go back and start deleting posts, I might not have lived up to Kontor's high moral standard! The poor thing might lose faith in humanity! Oh, the bathos!

===========

That is a good post, and I must say I am stunned by it. I hesitate to do what you say we should and need to do, as it all it does is get us crap all the time, and it makes us seem like power-hungry idiots.

Yep, I typed up a huge reply but eventually decided I had nothing but Mad Rave in reply. Hopefully someone else can do better.

Let me see if I understand this.

It's the USA's duty to stop third world dictators from getting nuclear weapons.

When China and Russia do the same, they're 'meddling with others affairs' and there will be no one to stop them from taking over the world.

I'm seeing some slight problems here...

Doublethink much?

Let me see if I understand this.

It's the USA's duty to stop third world dictators from getting nuclear weapons.

When China and Russia do the same, they're 'meddling with others affairs' and there will be no one to stop them from taking over the world.

I'm seeing some slight problems here...

Read my previous posts dude. If you are too lazy to do so then I will tell you. I would we just as rather pull out, of everywhere But I don't control America now do I?

Read my previous posts dude.

I have no wish to go through every page of this thread, but from what I see, I'm not sure any of your previous posts have exceeded one line and have had much more content than 'go away' and 'you're immature'. Please be more specific.

Read my previous posts dude.

But ... but ... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

You said that IN THE OP!

What ... previous ... posts ???

Here, look, you said that in the OP, the OP which in my first post I still had the good sense not to refer to, since it is a load of flamebaiting, floridly contradictory, ignorant pigfart. Here, in your own ridiculous words:

*snip*
The safekeeping of the world won't be our problem much longer.:cool:


Wait I almost forgot, those 3'd world dictaors will manage to get their hands on nukes eventually, and without the U.S to deal with them they will use them eventually .

That's the first part, the USA is doing the right thing by keeping nukes out of the hands of third-world dictators (like, um, Musharref perhaps? But anyway)

And then you continue, unsnipped here, the very next words from the OP:

Unless of course China or Russia desides to stop them but really, if they start meddling with others affairs, who is to keep them from stopping?

Please, please, don't tell me that you expect us to go look up "previous posts" from other threads.* Hamilay's summation was very accurate, and the correct answer from you would be "yes, that's what I said."
* Though actually, that could be fun. "Kontors blooper reel, featuring EVERY POST KONTOR HAS EVER MADE!!"

Read my previous posts dude. If you are too lazy to do so then I will tell you. I would we just as rather pull out, of everywhere But I don't control America now do I?

So what you're saying is that you don't care if third world dictators get nuclear weapons.

... then why did you complain about it in the OP?

Hey im not denying Europe WAS a bastion of war and imperialism, but that stopped in the 60's.

so to be brave you have to have war and imperialism? what a great message, we send. If thats the case, conqueor your neigbors and be in constant conflicts, that way you will be the bravest little toaster.

I think this thread is going downhill, as far as i know i've seen about maybe 10 good posts that contributed useful insights and information, and not criticisms of someone elses ideas.
I'm surprised this has kept going as long as it has. I apolgise to some people who make valuable posts, but really i think this should be put in spam now.

I think this thread is going downhill, as far as i know i've seen about maybe 10 good posts that contributed useful insights and information, and not criticisms of someone elses ideas.
I'm surprised this has kept going as long as it has. I apolgise to some people who make valuable posts, but really i think this should be put in spam now.

Critiques can be insightful, and by the way thats part of debating. the first post really was just an oversimplification of the world and essentially put it into the dumps from the beginning.

Critiques can be insightful, and by the way thats part of debating. the first post really was just an oversimplification of the world and essentially put it into the dumps from the beginning.

True, but i'd prefer to debate on something that is based on sources and is more concrete than personal opinion. I can see what Kontors trying to say, he's just not saying it very well hence the vast amount of critiques.

True, but i'd prefer to debate on something that is based on sources and is more concrete than personal opinion. I can see what Kontors trying to say, he's just not saying it very well hence the vast amount of critiques.
And he isn't really saying with it with any sort of sources and its very unconcrete if you will. In fact this whole thread is based on his personal opinion.

Wow, this thread is the funniest thing I've read this morning. Thanks, everyone!

Side note: as of this posting, the cowardly Euro's [sic] are trading at 0.67671 per, um, brave and righteous U.S. Dollar. 's. (Mid-market rate.)
Not that the economies of all nations are inextricably linked by trade or anything. <hides from isolationists behind couch>.

Wait I almost forgot, those 3'd world dictaors will manage to get their hands on nukes eventually, and without the U.S to deal with them they will use them eventually

Psst. Don't tell anyone, but they will eventually be used no matter what. Genies don't go back into bottles.

You seem to have some issues. Perhaps it would help to talk to someone about them. ;)
That's why they're here. Unintentional/unconscious troll. :)

Surely the USA is not so pathetic that it cannot deal with much smaller differences ?
To live here, you really, REALLY couldn't tell, what with our media industry and all. :(

Psst. Don't tell anyone, but they will eventually be used no matter what. Genies don't go back into bottles.

Like the world of CoC, you are not trying to stop the rise of the Great Old Ones, but your job is to keep delaying the wake up call. ;)

Every nation will fall one day, it's just a matter of when.


Because you don't know
how to stay alive
and that's the secret of life.

But we have a war to win.

But America will lose the war.
Italy will win it.
-
America's the strongest nation
on earth.
The American fighting man
is the best trained,
the best equipped, the best fed...

Italy, on the other hand, is one
of the weakest nations on earth
and the ltalian fighting man
is hardly equipped at all.
That's why my country is doing so
well while yours is doing so poorly.

That's silly! First ltaly was
occupied by Germans and now by us.
- You call that doing well?

- Of course I do.
The Germans are being driven out
and we are still here.
In a few years, you'll be gone
and we'll still be here.
Italy is a very poor, weak country
yet that is what makes us so strong,
strong enough to survive this war
and still be in existence
long after your country
has been destroyed.

What are you talking about?
America's not going to be destroyed.

- Never?

- Well...

Rome was destroyed.
Greece was destroyed.
Persia was destroyed.
Spain was destroyed.
All great countries are destroyed.
Why not yours?
How much longer do you think
your country will last? Forever?

- Forever is a long time, I guess.
- Very long.
...
- Don't you have any principles?

- Of course not.

- No morality?

- I'm a very moral man.
And ltaly is a very moral country.
That's why we will certainly
come out on top again
if we succeed in being defeated.

- You talk like a madman.

- But I live like a sane one.
I was a Fascist
when Mussolini was on top.
Now that he has been deposed,
I am anti-Fascist.
When the Germans were here,
I was fanatically pro-German.
Now I'm fanatically pro-America!
You'll find no more loyal partisan
in all of ltaly than myself.

You're a shameful opportunist!
All I know is ...
It's better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.

You have it backwards.
It's better to live on your feet
than to die on your knees. I know.

- How do you know?
- Because I am 104 years old.

How old are you?

I'll be 21 in January.

If you live.
:cool:

Mock me as you will but the beginning of the end is already starting.

Mock me as you will but the beginning of the end is already starting.
You'll get mocked about just about everything you post, if history is to be believed. :)
Btw ... here's a concept worth consideration.
The beginning of EVERYTHING is also the beginning of its end. EVERYTHING.
Trying is the first step towards failure.
Something really funny, actually - a commercial just came on about "bible prophecy" as i type this -
http://www.revelation-now.com
Hahaha!!!!!
I was visitor "2079".
Hillary-ass.

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right". The dislike and even hatred the two sides feel for each other grows more rabid and intense every year. So, why am I worried the U.S may fall? As Lincoln said "A house divided apon itself cannot stand".
It really isn't divided compared to Europe in terms of politics. Whatsoever.

The Democrats are centre-right. The Republicans are right-wing. Not exactly a huge difference between the two, compared to, say, Belgium, where about 50 of the 150 members of the House of Representatives are socialists, another 50-ish free-market liberals, another 30 conservatives and roughly 20 extreme-right wing.

Which, as you may imagine, has caused quite some problems in trying to form a government.
Don't get me wrong, thats not the only reason I think we are headed for disaster. Some of the others reasons are, of course the debt, the hatred of the rest of the world, aimed at us, and the massive cultural strain the illegals are putting on the U.S.
You forgot the slowing down of the economy as jobs are being set to Asia, and the US' collosal hubris, which is something that doesn't seem to be getting any more slight any time soon.
If you think about it, this is disaster in the making
Nah.
but hey at least those whiny Europeans
You're the one whining here, and since you're a Yank, that somewhat undermines your point, no?
will have to deal with China
"Yo, you up for some trade in return for us not messing about with your internal affairs?"
"Fair enough"
Russia
"Yo"
"Da?"
"Err... just... keep doing your thing"
"Da"
and a growing latin america
"Hola"
"Somos muy pobres :("
"¿Por no te callas?"
as well as domestic riots
Of an insignificant nature.
and cultural erosion.
Erm, not really.
The safekeeping of the world won't be our problem much longer.
And thank fuck for that.
Wait I almost forgot, those 3'd world dictaors will manage to get their hands on nukes eventually
Don't really see why. Most of the third world can't afford to keep its own citizens fed and watered, let alone maintain any kind of nuclear arsenal, let alone multiple ICBM MIRV capacity, which is what would be needed to damage Europe.
and without the U.S to deal with them they will use them eventually
Remember that Africa was Europe's bitch for nigh on three hundred years solid. I think they know that we can utterly fuck them over in the blink of an eye ;)
Unless of course China or Russia desides to stop them but really, if they start meddling with others affairs, who is to keep them from stopping?
China are already active in Africa. Russia doesn't need Africa for its resources, seeing as it has plenty of its own.
It certainly won't be those cowardly Euro's and everyone else will be to weak.
Just remember how much of Europe is involved in Afghanistan, squire. If people piss us off enough, we're extremely happy to act. Not getting involved in Iraq, which is the Fox issue which makes Europe 'weak and whiny' was just being sensible.
I'm not even taking into account the terrorist's!
Oh noes... I'm in utterly constant fear of them...
Ain't it a wonderfull world we live in folks?
It's been worse, that's for sure.

It's been worse, that's for sure.

It's been worse true, but only in isolated areas, we now have the ability to spread our problems EVERYWHERE.

we now have the ability to spread our problems EVERYWHERE.GOD BLESS TEH SERIES OF TUBEZ!
http://media.seattleweekly.com/536958.40.jpg

Seriously, our nation was founded on it through commerce. You should know that by now.

Your links bad.
Worked for me. *shrug*
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/images/1221-02.jpg

Edit: Founded on WHAT?You know what i mean.

GOD BLESS TEH SERIES OF TUBEZ!
http://media.seattleweekly.com/536958.40.jpg

Seriously, our nation was founded on it through commerce. You should know that by now.

Your links bad.


Edit: Founded on WHAT?

It's been worse true, but only in isolated areas, we now have the ability to spread our problems EVERYWHERE.
I'd say that most of the world circa 1942 was much worse everywhere.

We don't assassinate our political rivals or hack their supporters to pieces with machetes. Despite the efforts of wackos in Montana, we don't have guerilla oganizations in the mountains shelling population centers. Political apathy will keep us united. :)

Hey, I happen to be a wacko who lives in Montana!

Hey, I happen to be a wacko who lives in Montana!

Are you starting an insurgent group?

Are you starting an insurgent group?

Not yet. :p

Surely the USA is not so pathetic that it cannot deal with much smaller differences ? The differneces aren't just political.

Hey, I happen to be a wacko who lives in Montana!AH! Ruby Ridge!

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right". The dislike and even hatred the two sides feel for each other grows more rabid and intense every year. So, why am I worried the U.S may fall? As Lincoln said "A house divided apon itself cannot stand".
You know the people of this great nation used to go to war over things as trivial land laws and taxes, I think we've tamed quite a bit and I doubt that we're headed toward another civil war.

Don't get me wrong, thats not the only reason I think we are headed for disaster. Some of the others reasons are, of course the debt, the hatred of the rest of the world, aimed at us, and the massive cultural strain the illegals are putting on the U.S.
The cultural strain illegals are putting on the US? What strain? I like Mexican food. Real Mexican food, not that Taco Bell squirt-bottle immitation stuff. And immigrants are eager to prove their worth and get some cash flow so they'll provide lot's of cheap labor. They get a better life and I get an easy one with a nice house and cool stuff that I'll be able to afford with all the money I saved by switching to Illegco. It's win/win.

Regardless of who said it, a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. If there is to be a downfall of this democratic republic, it will be from populist greed.

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right".

Fail.

The United States has no 'left'. Only 'right' and 'slightly-more-right'.

Fail.

The United States has no 'left'. Only 'right' and 'slightly-more-right'.
And it seems to appeal to quite a few Cubans. See any fleets of hastily constructed rafts heading the other way?

And it seems to appeal to quite a few Cubans. See any fleets of hastily constructed rafts heading the other way?

Filled with Michael Moore, 9/11 heroes and a few other sick people that can only get medical aid there since the USA does not give a damn ?

Otherwise.. not many.

And it seems to appeal to quite a few Cubans. See any fleets of hastily constructed rafts heading the other way?

Chocolate spaghetti telehone?

Mock me as you will but the beginning of the end is already starting.

That's a bit like the saying "today is the first day of the rest of your life", isn't it? :p

Bullshit. Utter and total bullshit. Everyone claims that they have no problems with immigrants if they only followed the laws, but look at the vitrol that got spewed when there was talk of simply making them all legal residents and no longer making them illegal immigrants.Thats because anyone who has any real respect for the law is outraged when people are given a free pass. It has nothing to do with making people "no longer illegal". It's the fact that doing so would be tipping our hand, letting current violations of the law go unpunished. Once the law has been broken, it has been broken, period. Punishment must fall on the lawbreaker no matter what.

all nations fall eventually. or evolve. or both.

what effects you and me and everyone else 'on the ground' are the conditions we experience. the kind of world we all have to live.

what creates difficult conditions is arbitraryness of policy.
every idiology and every economic theory contribute to and are used as excuses for, arbitraryness of policy.

there are no exceptions.

infrastructure is useful. keeping people from freezing, starving or beating each other over the head is useful. maintaining any form of hierarchy, just for one to be there and have a name, is not.

if no nation could exist without bullying other nations, then real people, places and things, would be better off without them.

if no nation could exist without protecting those who cause suffering to others from being prevented from causing that suffering, then real people, places and things, would be better off without them.

if no nation could exist without protecting and perpetuating conceptual constructs which cause as much or more harm then good, and by this i am pointing at corporate economic intrests, though perhapse others might be conceivable, at the expense and harm, to real people, places and things, then again we would be better off without them.

so we have all these harms to measure against a handful of bennifits, which it is repeatedly proposed those bennifits be abondond entirely.

well i believe nations, or something like nations, can exist, without doing and being all these harmful things, and while doing to atleast some degree some of the bennificial ones. i don't believe that is a utopian fantasy. but i do believe expecting any idiology or economic theory to insure that they do is one.

so yes, america, or atleast the external hegemony of economic intrests who'se only intrests are economicly self serving, which it has been usurped by and supports, will be, at some point, and probably over an extended period of time, that has already begun, shrink back to something considerably more tame and reasonable.

something who'se resaulting form, cannot as yet be clearly predicted.

=^^=
.../\...

Thats because anyone who has any real respect for the law is outraged when people are given a free pass. It has nothing to do with making people "no longer illegal". It's the fact that doing so would be tipping our hand, letting current violations of the law go unpunished. Once the law has been broken, it has been broken, period. Punishment must fall on the lawbreaker no matter what.

Please explain what US law is broken by entering the country without a visa.

It's a fine line. It's called a "border."

You've opened my eyes to a new horizon! I see the world differently!
Sweet Zombie Jesus! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FedpIK3xLAM)


This is alarmist BS my freind...

Well, actually, you guys technically are. You're one of the only states on Earth with both nuclear weapons and a strong blue-water navy, and have one of its biggest and most developed economies. Even China doesn't have the kind of projection power the UK currently possesses, and it has an economy nearly three times as large with a population more than ten times higher.
Even so, Britain's become a joke. I'm all in favour of a strong military and nuclear weapons, but we're currently in a situation where we get dragged into every war the US starts, but we're not actually powerful enough to make any major decisions. So our government does whatever America says, acting like it's a way of giving our country an international presence when all it does is make us a laughing stock. We need to just stop getting caught up in other people's wars.

And it seems to appeal to quite a few Cubans. See any fleets of hastily constructed rafts heading the other way?
I'm pretty sure that Cuba doesn't want the kind of Cubans living in Miami back. The kind of people that actually hope that Fidel Castro is going to die are the scum of the earth. Wishing death upon people... eugh.

so you would be in favor of supporting a law say like segregation where numerous amounts of people violated it in protest of the law?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a correlation between segregation and enforcing immigration laws.

there are quite a bit of people that wish that George W. would die, would you poo poo them to?

I would, I don't feel that arrogance and stupidity need to be punished by death ;)

Thats because anyone who has any real respect for the law is outraged when people are given a free pass. It has nothing to do with making people "no longer illegal". It's the fact that doing so would be tipping our hand, letting current violations of the law go unpunished. Once the law has been broken, it has been broken, period. Punishment must fall on the lawbreaker no matter what.

so you would be in favor of supporting a law say like segregation where numerous amounts of people violated it in protest of the law?

I'm pretty sure that Cuba doesn't want the kind of Cubans living in Miami back. The kind of people that actually hope that Fidel Castro is going to die are the scum of the earth. Wishing death upon people... eugh.

there are quite a bit of people that wish that George W. would die, would you poo poo them to?

I'd say that most of the world circa 1942 was much worse everywhere.

true that, in fact I'd say the world was much worse in say 1916-1917 when millions of people were dying in a fruitless war and the very foundations of world trade at the time, ie: Europe, were all pretty much on the brink of total destruction. Come to think of it, 1960s were a pretty bad time, same with the cold war era and all that Jazz. In fact the dark ages were probably even worse than all of this combined.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a correlation between segregation and enforcing immigration laws.

the man said that any law breakers need to be punished, I gave him an example that I think would make that a bit morally grey. Not only that, he's basically saying that we need to punish anyone thats violated a law thats been outdated. Alright then, lets round up those moonshiners and people who violated segregation laws.

... In fact the dark ages were probably even worse than all of this combined.when religious nutjobs ruled? well, the US seems to be heading that way.

I'm pretty sure that Cuba doesn't want the kind of Cubans living in Miami back. The kind of people that actually hope that Fidel Castro is going to die are the scum of the earth. Wishing death upon people... eugh.

I'm not quite sure that every cuban immigrant that comes here wishes that fidel castro would die. Not a big fan of him by the way.

I would, I don't feel that arrogance and stupidity need to be punished by death ;)

One could argue that he essentially killed all of those soldiers in Iraq, but just for you how bout a different example. Lets say Hitler or stalin or mao or some sort of mass murderer were still alive, would you want them to die?

when religious nutjobs ruled? well, the US seems to be heading that way.

wow, and I thought i heard all of the alarmist bullshit I could tolerate today. Not just the religious nutjobs, I'm talking about when the quality of life was in total shit, when essentially most people were property belonging to a select grew group of nobility, when there were constant wars on everyones soil. When women were treated as property of their husbands, when the average life expectancy was like 20 years old if that. Religious nutjobs don't rule the country btw, its a lot more complicated then that, just like I was saying about the OP he makes every thing out to be so simple when there are a lot more factors in play then just the ones he mentioned.

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right". The dislike and even hatred the two sides feel for each other grows more rabid and intense every year. So, why am I worried the U.S may fall? As Lincoln said "A house divided apon itself cannot stand".

Don't get me wrong, thats not the only reason I think we are headed for disaster. Some of the others reasons are, of course the debt, the hatred of the rest of the world, aimed at us, and the massive cultural strain the illegals are putting on the U.S. If you think about it, this is disaster in the making, but hey at least those whiny Europeans will have to deal with China, Russia and a growing latin america as well as domestic riots and cultural erosion. The safekeeping of the world won't be our problem much longer.:cool:


Wait I almost forgot, those 3'd world dictaors will manage to get their hands on nukes eventually, and without the U.S to deal with them they will use them eventually . Unless of course China or Russia desides to stop them but really, if they start meddling with others affairs, who is to keep them from stopping? It certainly won't be those cowardly Euro's and everyone else will be to weak. I'm not even taking into account the terrorist's! Ain't it a wonderfull world we live in folks? Well, later Ya'll.;)

See what's wrong with people with Alzheimer? They can take a dump in a room, leave, and come back later and say "Hey!...who took a dump on my floor?"

there are quite a bit of people that wish that George W. would die, would you poo poo them to?
Yes. He's bad, but wishing death upon him? Cowardly.
true that, in fact I'd say the world was much worse in say 1916-1917 when millions of people were dying in a fruitless war and the very foundations of world trade at the time, ie: Europe, were all pretty much on the brink of total destruction. Come to think of it, 1960s were a pretty bad time, same with the cold war era and all that Jazz. In fact the dark ages were probably even worse than all of this combined.
Nope.

The civilian population of almost every country was basically unaffected by the first world war. People from Paris took train trips down to holiday in the south whilst soldiers were getting killed all over the place.

As the the 1960s - nowhere other than Vietnam was in the kind of state that most of Europe and Asia was in 1942. Fine, eastern Europe was pretty bad, but not that bad.

As to the Dark Ages - nah. Very little warfare going on, and people generally just lived until about 40 or 50, having been a farmer, or woodsman or whatever. Yeah, fine, limited provision for healthcare, but the quality of life wasn't too terrible, and people weren't getting killed all over the place.
I'm not quite sure that every cuban immigrant that comes here wishes that fidel castro would die. Not a big fan of him by the way.
I'm not exactly a member of the Castro fan club myself (although he's not done a bad job), but the sights of the dancing in the streets and so on and so forth in Miami when the Cubans there found that Castro was in hospital due to internal bleeding was pretty terrible, to be quite honest.

Like the world of CoC, you are not trying to stop the rise of the Great Old Ones, but your job is to keep delaying the wake up call. ;)

Why? It's high time they rose from the depths. IA! YOG SOTHOTH! :p

Aw, c'mon folks. Don't feed the troll. He isn't even funny or clever or anything...

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4967/safetyzg0.gif

[QUOTE]Nope.

The civilian population of almost every country was basically unaffected by the first world war. People from Paris took train trips down to holiday in the south whilst soldiers were getting killed all over the place.
Ok how about the great deppression?
As the the 1960s - nowhere other than Vietnam was in the kind of state that most of Europe and Asia was in 1942. Fine, eastern Europe was pretty bad, but not that bad.
I'm talking about things such as, well I don't know if this happened in europe, but the violent rioting that took place. Or how bout LBJ, Richard Nixon, the constant threat of Nuclear war? Great time for music though.
As to the Dark Ages - nah. Very little warfare going on, and people generally just lived until about 40 or 50, having been a farmer, or woodsman or whatever. Yeah, fine, limited provision for healthcare, but the quality of life wasn't too terrible, and people weren't getting killed all over the place.
Religious wars anyone? 30 years war, crusades, Scandivian invasions etc.
I'm not exactly a member of the Castro fan club myself (although he's not done a bad job), but the sights of the dancing in the streets and so on and so forth in Miami when the Cubans there found that Castro was in hospital due to internal bleeding was pretty terrible, to be quite honest.
Well its quite easy for us to sit around and say we would never want to kill someone when we don't have someone like Castro in power over us.

Ok how about the great deppression?
People weren't getting sent off to concentration camps, most of Europe wasn't heavily bombed, and people could still get food, in the main, although things were a bit rough.
I'm talking about things such as, well I don't know if this happened in europe, but the violent rioting that took place.
Utterly minor.
Or how bout LBJ
Meh.
Richard Nixon
Lame, but meh.
the constant threat of Nuclear war?
So?

I'm sure it made everyone a bit nervy, but other than that, nothing special, and there wasn't much violence.
Great time for music though.
S'alright.
Religious wars anyone?
Were of an infrequent nature, and you could always slope back home when you got to Italy and had to wait for the boats.
30 years war
Of 1618?

Lame if you were German, but there we go. Still better for the world in general than World War 2, that's for sure.
crusades
Infrequent and minor conflicts.
Scandivian invasions
Extremely minor.
Well its quite easy for us to sit around and say we would never want to kill someone when we don't have someone like Castro in power over us.
Yes, well the Miami Cubans don't have Castro ruling them, and I don't think that he really did that bad a job over in Cuba, to be honest. If the US took its ridiculous embargo down, the quality of life there would probably be extremely acceptable, and it's a hell of a lot better than in the US' client state Haiti, no?

I'm pretty sure that Cuba doesn't want the kind of Cubans living in Miami back. The kind of people that actually hope that Fidel Castro is going to die are the scum of the earth. Wishing death upon people... eugh.

What about the numerous people wishing death to Bush and Co.

What about the numerous people wishing death to Bush and Co.

Self defense?

What about the numerous people wishing death to Bush and Co.The same.

The same.

Explain.

Explain.Wishing death and misery on people, eugh. Why should that not count for bad people like Castro, Bush, or Putin? They're people as well.

Wishing death and misery on people, eugh. Why should that not count for bad people like Castro, Bush, or Putin? They're people as well.

Being a member of the human race makes a lifeform deserving of better ?

What about the numerous people wishing death to Bush and Co.
... I already said that they were being very cowardly.

Jesus Christ...

... I already said that they were being very cowardly.

Jesus Christ...

I did not read that till after I posted, you have my apologies for wasting your time.

As to the Dark Ages - nah. Very little warfare going on, and people generally just lived until about 40 or 50, having been a farmer, or woodsman or whatever. Yeah, fine, limited provision for healthcare, but the quality of life wasn't too terrible, and people weren't getting killed all over the place.

What? The Dark Ages were terrible! Warfare was all over the place, with plagues and shit wiping out the population, as well as frequent famines. I would consider the Dark Ages to be the worst of all time periods to live in.

I'm not exactly a member of the Castro fan club myself (although he's not done a bad job), but the sights of the dancing in the streets and so on and so forth in Miami when the Cubans there found that Castro was in hospital due to internal bleeding was pretty terrible, to be quite honest.

That's not terrible. You've been exiled from your home and the only thing that keeps you from returning is that single man. I'd say their dancing is pretty well justified.

What? The Dark Ages were terrible! Warfare was all over the place, with plagues and shit wiping out the population,
I so have to write that in my Early Modern Europe exam!

What? The Dark Ages were terrible! Warfare was all over the place, with plagues and shit wiping out the population, as well as frequent famines. I would consider the Dark Ages to be the worst of all time periods to live in.
By and large, the majority of people were unaffected by wars in the Medieval period. The Dark Ages (or Early Middle Ages), the majority of people would have got on fine, just scratching away at the earth. Yeah, it wasn't a brilliant time to be alive, but I imagine most people didn't worry about war. In that period, battles and armies were ridiculously small, a couple of thousand on each side. It wasn't until the Early Modern Period that war was really felt outside of the immediate area.

By and large, the majority of people were unaffected by wars in the Medieval period. The Dark Ages (or Early Middle Ages), the majority of people would have got on fine, just scratching away at the earth. Yeah, it wasn't a brilliant time to be alive, but I imagine most people didn't worry about war. In that period, battles and armies were ridiculously small, a couple of thousand on each side. It wasn't until the Early Modern Period that war was really felt outside of the immediate area.

That's simply because the population during the era was ridiculously small. And even if they weren't in a war, the life of a serf was overwhelmingly bad. Just considering that their life expectancy was half or less than ours is very telling.

What? The Dark Ages were terrible!
Nah. Poor, yes, but not as bad as the second world war.
Warfare was all over the place
Not on any large scale, no. Minor skirmishes between barons here and there.
with plagues and shit wiping out the population
Nah. There was a background level of Typhus and the rest, but there was only one really devastating plague, which came after the Dark Ages really ended.
as well as frequent famines.
Depends where you were.
I would consider the Dark Ages to be the worst of all time periods to live in.
Nah. Anywhere pre-Bronze Age was worse off than the Dark Ages. At least in the Dark Ages you'd have farming to supplant hunting. In anywhere pre-Bronze Age, it was almost all hunter-gathering, which is a pretty terrible way to try to get food by comparison, and medicine was yet cruder.
That's not terrible.
Erm, yes it is.
You've been exiled from your home
Largely people bugger off, rather than being exiled by the state. You might say 'same difference', but it's a bit of a different kettle of fish, to be honest.
and the only thing that keeps you from returning is that single man.
I'm pretty sure that Fidel, now in hospital, doesn't go around perpetually checking the borders at about mach 12 to make sure that people never get in, ever.
I'd say their dancing is pretty well justified.
I'd disagree. But there we go.

The United States of America is pretty much divided as far as ideologies goes, the "left" and the "right". The dislike and even hatred the two sides feel for each other grows more rabid and intense every year. So, why am I worried the U.S may fall? As Lincoln said "A house divided apon itself cannot stand".

Don't get me wrong, thats not the only reason I think we are headed for disaster. Some of the others reasons are, of course the debt, the hatred of the rest of the world, aimed at us, and the massive cultural strain the illegals are putting on the U.S. If you think about it, this is disaster in the making, but hey at least those whiny Europeans will have to deal with China, Russia and a growing latin america as well as domestic riots and cultural erosion. The safekeeping of the world won't be our problem much longer.:cool:


Wait I almost forgot, those 3'd world dictaors will manage to get their hands on nukes eventually, and without the U.S to deal with them they will use them eventually . Unless of course China or Russia desides to stop them but really, if they start meddling with others affairs, who is to keep them from stopping? It certainly won't be those cowardly Euro's and everyone else will be to weak. I'm not even taking into account the terrorist's! Ain't it a wonderfull world we live in folks? Well, later Ya'll.;)

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about

Why I forsee the fall of the U.S. ...
Because you are a myopic alarmist..?

I see the fall of the U.S., and eventually the world, if Hillary Clinton gets in office. She's far too emotional, and she'd screw us over by cutting off ties from any country that is even slightly "shady."

Obviously, she'd cut off ties with China, which exports loads of things to the U.S., because they forcefully kill fetuses if it's the third baby and the mother/father haven't paid for it. Then after cutting off relations with half of the world, she'd stand at empty harbors scratching her head thinking, "Now where the hell are all those imported goods?"


Don't bother to reply to this, as I'm not going to come back to this thread.

I see the fall of the U.S., and eventually the world, if Hillary Clinton gets in office. She's far too emotional, and she'd screw us over by cutting off ties from any country that is even slightly "shady."

Obviously, she'd cut off ties with China, which exports loads of things to the U.S., because they forcefully kill fetuses if it's the third baby and the mother/father haven't paid for it. Then after cutting off relations with half of the world, she'd stand at empty harbors scratching her head thinking, "Now where the hell are all those imported goods?"


Don't bother to reply to this, as I'm not going to come back to this thread.
Erm. No.

Nah. Poor, yes, but not as bad as the second world war.

I would dispute that. If you were a Jew/ Pole/ undesirable, things were unbearably shitty, but otherwise, as bad as things were during WWII, I'd say that things were worse during the Dark Ages. Having the shit firebombed out of your city is no worse than being massacred by a victorious army.

Not on any large scale, no. Minor skirmishes between barons here and there.

Yes, but the background was full of such minor skirmishes. And what exactly are you talking about? Do the Germanic invasions, the wars by the expanding Franks, the Byzantine Wars, the Arab Expansion, the Viking Raids, and the Norman Invasion, among others, simply not count as wars?


Nah. Anywhere pre-Bronze Age was worse off than the Dark Ages. At least in the Dark Ages you'd have farming to supplant hunting. In anywhere pre-Bronze Age, it was almost all hunter-gathering, which is a pretty terrible way to try to get food by comparison, and medicine was yet cruder.

I would dispute that. In the pre-Bronze Age, you didn't have the trade routes bringing in diseases from all over the place. The medicine of the Dark Ages was almost as bad, if not just as bad. And the wars weren't as frequent, since the population didn't buffer up against each other.

Erm, yes it is.
No. There's nothing wrong with wanting a dictator to die so you can return home.

Largely people bugger off, rather than being exiled by the state. You might say 'same difference', but it's a bit of a different kettle of fish, to be honest.

I'm pretty sure that Fidel, now in hospital, doesn't go around perpetually checking the borders at about mach 12 to make sure that people never get in, ever.


I'd disagree. But there we go.

So what your telling me is that if a fascist took over Britain and forced you to flee through his policies, you wouldn't wish death upon him so you could return to your home?

Don't bother to reply to this, as I'm not going to come back to this thread.No wonder why.

I see the fall of the U.S., and eventually the world, if Hillary Clinton gets in office. She's far too emotional, and she'd screw us over by cutting off ties from any country that is even slightly "shady."

Obviously, she'd cut off ties with China, which exports loads of things to the U.S., because they forcefully kill fetuses if it's the third baby and the mother/father haven't paid for it. Then after cutting off relations with half of the world, she'd stand at empty harbors scratching her head thinking, "Now where the hell are all those imported goods?"


Don't bother to reply to this, as I'm not going to come back to this thread.

Do you even know what your talking about? That is the most asinine assessment of Hillary ever.

I would dispute that. If you were a Jew/ Pole/ undesirable, things were unbearably shitty, but otherwise, as bad as things were during WWII, I'd say that things were worse during the Dark Ages.
No, I think you're confusing "Jew/Pole" for "the entire population of Europe, Asia and most of Africa".
Having the shit firebombed out of your city is no worse than being massacred by a victorious army.
Victorious armies going around raping and pillaging was rare. Your town being bombed and generally ruined within a single night, that wasn't uncommon in World War 2.
Yes, but the background was full of such minor skirmishes.
Aye, like one every couple of years. Whoopedy fucking do. A small fight between some poncey nobles which makes a couple of hundred peasants die? Unimportant.
And what exactly are you talking about?
Early modern history, obviously.
Do the Germanic invasions, the wars by the expanding Franks, the Byzantine Wars, the Arab Expansion, the Viking Raids, and the Norman Invasion, among others, simply not count as wars?
Since most of them involved pretty minor amounts of deaths, no.

Keep in mind that one of the larger battles of the whole of the dark ages, Agincourt (huzzah huzzah) involved a mere thirty-odd thousand people. That's not actually very many.
I would dispute that. In the pre-Bronze Age, you didn't have the trade routes bringing in diseases from all over the place.
Or food. Or any kind of income. Or much of anything. This isn't anything particularly good, you know.

Your berries run out or your deer bugger off and you're pretty much fucked. As opposed to in the Dark Ages, when you can just about scrape by off crops and trade.
The medicine of the Dark Ages was almost as bad, if not just as bad.
Erm, it was better.
And the wars weren't as frequent, since the population didn't buffer up against each other.
In the Dark Ages, people didn't buffer up against each other... my town, York, which was the largest in the Danelaw, contained a massive ten thousand people, and there were very few settlements nearby, either.
No. There's nothing wrong with wanting a dictator to die so you can return home.
I'd disagree.
So what your telling me is that if a fascist took over Britain and forced you to flee through his policies, you wouldn't wish death upon him so you could return to your home?
I'd either put an effort in to effect such a measure or I'd shut the fuck up. Dancing in the streets when people die or are on the brink of dying when you've put no effort into it is utter cowardice.

By and large, the majority of people were unaffected by wars in the Medieval period. The Dark Ages (or Early Middle Ages), the majority of people would have got on fine, just scratching away at the earth. Yeah, it wasn't a brilliant time to be alive, but I imagine most people didn't worry about war. In that period, battles and armies were ridiculously small, a couple of thousand on each side. It wasn't until the Early Modern Period that war was really felt outside of the immediate area.

I'm not quite so sure of that. Have you read Candide and its mockery of war? Mostly it consisted of raping women, pillaging towns and killing people oh and killing more people. Not to mention the plague killing everything indiscriminately.

People weren't getting sent off to concentration camps, most of Europe wasn't heavily bombed, and people could still get food, in the main, although things were a bit rough.
well what about in Germany, Italy and Japan where the deppression had taken a huge toll on the economy?


Of 1618?

Lame if you were German, but there we go. Still better for the world in general than World War 2, that's for sure.
Actually just about all of Europe got wrapped up in the 30 years war.


[/QUOTE]

I'm not quite so sure of that. Have you read Candide and its mockery of war? Mostly it consisted of raping women, pillaging towns and killing people oh and killing more people. Not to mention the plague killing everything indiscriminately.
I'm about to ask "What is Candide", so assume that's a no :p
Keep in mind that one of the larger battles of the whole of the dark ages, Agincourt (huzzah huzzah) involved a mere thirty-odd thousand people. That's not actually very many.
I wasn't aware that Agincourt was in the Dark Ages. I kind of assumed what is called the Dark Ages ended in 1066, or there abouts.

I see the fall of the U.S., and eventually the world, if Hillary Clinton gets in office. She's far too emotional, and she'd screw us over by cutting off ties from any country that is even slightly "shady."

Obviously, she'd cut off ties with China, which exports loads of things to the U.S., because they forcefully kill fetuses if it's the third baby and the mother/father haven't paid for it. Then after cutting off relations with half of the world, she'd stand at empty harbors scratching her head thinking, "Now where the hell are all those imported goods?"


Don't bother to reply to this, as I'm not going to come back to this thread.

I'm personally not a fan of Hillary clinton either but this is just utterly stupid. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I'm about to ask "What is Candide", so assume that's a no :p


Its a book by the french philosopher Voltaire that essentially mocks the idiocy of his time.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about

And who are you then? Why am I OBVIOUSLY wrong? You and your opinion mean less than nothing to me.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this - nations rise, nations fall. The US will fall, that's a given - if you've read any history at all, you'll realize that this is a foregone conclusion. It will fall for the same reasons the others fell - they became topheavy and unmanageable; internal corruption went out of control (there is always corruption in government, that's a given); communication broke down; external forces took advantage of weaknesses; internal forces took advantage of weaknesses; people became selfish, self-involved and apathetic - we see a lot of this going on now, but it hasn't reached the critical point yet, so we have a few good decades, maybe even centuries, left. And no, it's not unavoidable, it's a form of sociological entropy, it can be delayed but not stopped.

This thread is just too funny. First the US thing...the world could live without the US...think of all the weapons that wouldn't have been sold to 3rd and 2nd world countries for extortionate prices. Second thing...my favourite...the immigrant thing...cultural strain...too funny...they say that in Britain "immigrants are ruining our culture" and the only people that say it wouldn't know culture if it was poured over them in the form of a very sticky liquid.

This thread is just too funny. First the US thing...the world could live without the US... the world would live on without any country.
think of all the weapons that wouldn't have been sold to 3rd and 2nd world countries for extortionate prices. yep, like MiGs, AK47's, SCUD missiles... yep they wouldn't have been sold if the US wasn't around.

:p

Don't bother to reply to this, as I'm not going to come back to this thread.
Scuttle away.
*wafts hand*

Its a book by the french philosopher Voltaire that essentially mocks the idiocy of his time.

Who ROCKED, btw. *nods*

I see the fall of the U.S., and eventually the world, if Hillary Clinton gets in office. She's far too emotional, and she'd screw us over by cutting off ties from any country that is even slightly "shady."

Obviously, she'd cut off ties with China, which exports loads of things to the U.S., because they forcefully kill fetuses if it's the third baby and the mother/father haven't paid for it. Then after cutting off relations with half of the world, she'd stand at empty harbors scratching her head thinking, "Now where the hell are all those imported goods?"


Don't bother to reply to this, as I'm not going to come back to this thread.

of course you won't, I wouldn't come back after typing something that stupid.:p

those cowardly Euro's...

i feel my contintent has every right to be "cowardly"... you see how you feel after you lose around 50 million people in war.


i can only assume by the ;) at the end, the OP is being satirical

i feel my contintent has every right to be "cowardly"... you see how you feel after you lose around 50 million people in war.

i can only assume by the ;) at the end, the OP is being satirical
I doubt that.

i feel my contintent has every right to be "cowardly"... you see how you feel after you lose around 50 million people in war.


i can only assume by the ;) at the end, the OP is being satirical

nah he went on a few more rants after that, i thought this thread should have been locked ages ago.
Mind you i'd imagine he's feeling a little embarrressed, hopefully this won't happen again it really wasn't fair to see one person so badly ripped apart, why didn't the mods pick this up?

nah he went on a few more rants after that, i thought this thread should have been locked ages ago.
Mind you i'd imagine he's feeling a little embarrressed, hopefully this won't happen again it really wasn't fair to see one person so badly ripped apart, why didn't the mods pick this up?

I said some things rather poorly, but generally that's how I feel. As for being "ripped apart" it's only some "insulting"comments from a few computer nerds, no biggie.

well what about in Germany, Italy and Japan where the deppression had taken a huge toll on the economy?
Germany - recovered very quickly after Hitler came to power.
Italy - didn't actually lose out that much.
The Japs - went into textiles and made a fucking bundle from it, as well as generally raping China to get its economy back.
Actually just about all of Europe got wrapped up in the 30 years war.
Aye, but it was nothing like so bad for anyone else as it was for the Germans.
I wasn't aware that Agincourt was in the Dark Ages. I kind of assumed what is called the Dark Ages ended in 1066, or there abouts.
I'd agree, but they're trying to claim that the 30 Years' war was in that kind of era-ish, so hey, there we go.

the world would live on without any country.


Although, most everyone would take a very serious hit, for quite sometime without the US around to provide the tangible and communal goods that it does.

Do you even know what your talking about? That is the most asinine assessment of Hillary ever.

Yeah- Hillary doesnt strike me as being too emotional.

maybe a little for the camera when she is pretending to be a wife or a mother.

yep, like MiGs, AK47's, SCUD missiles... yep they wouldn't have been sold if the US wasn't around.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22644928/
15 of 19.
No Iraqis.