As I read this debate, no one has yet challenged the notion of why one should need a large military, even if it is democratically decided to have such a thing.
Either it is, as Colman surmises, a fix for the unemployment figures, or it is, as I surmise, absofuckinglutely megolamaniac stupidity, unfit for the 3rd millennium.
How can you possibly compare a desire for a gargantuan frikkin military and an even more humungous intelligence industry with the desire for health treatment for all, a decent postal service or humane treatment for animals or anything else that a dignified society might wish to accomplish? You can't be me, I'm taken
Either it is,,,, 1.a fix for the unemployment figures, or it is, as I surmise, 2.absofuckinglutely megolamaniac stupidity, unfit for the 3rd millennium.
How can you possibly compare a desire for a gargantuan frikkin military and an even more humungous intelligence industry with the desire for health treatment for all, a decent postal service or humane treatment for animals or anything else that a dignified society might wish to accomplish?
What purpose does it serve? Whose purpose does it serve?
And while I'm about it, would it be necessary if people took some time to understand other cultures instead of picking up the nearest hammer?
As I recall from the millions and millions of hours of US television, say for instance after the Tehran hostage crisis - there were probably less than a 1000 US citizens who could say what the 5 pillars of Islam were. I doubt if it is more than few thousand now, unless they are Islamic.
This failure to understand other cultures and other beliefs is at the very heart of US problems IMHO. It is a failure that starts at the top, spreads out through the media, and disinforms the citizenry such that when they come to vote, they don't understand the context in which they vote.
Some decent arguments to rebut these assertions would be most welcome. We Europeans may be wrong. But at least we understand that justice is only served when the prosecution is balanced by a defence. By all the facts. If we only ever listened to prosecutors, we would hang everybody. Draw and quarter them too, most likely.
But we don't. We try to make balanced judgements which are, admittedly, very difficult in the rapidly changing multi-cultural context of Europe. At least we try, and we are changing ourselves in the process. Defenders of the faiths. Plural. You can't be me, I'm taken
As I read this debate, no one has yet challenged the notion of why one should need a large military, even if it is democratically decided to have such a thing. Either it is, as Colman surmises, a fix for the unemployment figures, or it is, as I surmise, absofuckinglutely megolamaniac stupidity, unfit for the 3rd millennium.
I hope that your options are meant to be sarcastic and snarky. And if you really want a discussion of this, you can lay out a starting point that shows more insight into America (which I think you have based on other posts of yours) than these comments show. If your above statements reflect what you believe, I don't think either of us should waste our time.
and "spoiled brats" as someone said on the football thread
Not to worry, wc: America tied Italy, and numediaman was made a fool by those spoiled brats, even though they lost to Ghana. And the truth is that America had every right to complain about the penalty kick opportunity Ghana was handed. It was a crock of shit.
If you or I had made comments like his "stay the course" one about any group of people in the world, we would be troll-rated immediately. The silence was deafening.
Good to see you around again. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Americans are poor losers (I'm an American) who have a hard time improvising when things go bad (witness Vietnam or Iraq). Instead they 'stay the course' right into disaster.
I haven't been reading this thread anyways, hence my silence was deafening through absentia.
In anticipation: how dare you dare my how dare you? (one of my favourite lines from a Leslie Nielsen movie, can't remember which one).
I didn't see it anyway: I've paid very little attention to world cup threads. I don't think I would have troll-rated it anyway: sighed slightly and ignored it. I see no reason to doubt that he is American, in which case I'm not in much of a position to troll rate him for his opinions of his own country. It'd be like people troll-rating me for saying how obsessed with ridiculous middle class competition the Irish are.
Bottom line: the U.S. team is made up spoiled brats who never face tough competition until World Cup time. Americans are poor losers (I'm an American) who have a hard time improvising when things go bad (witness Vietnam or Iraq). Instead they 'stay the course' right into disaster.
If this "American" wants to label himself as a poor loser, that's fine, but it seems disingenuous of some of the comments that seemed to support his admission of poorly losing, to include the US soccer team, US troops in Vietnam, US troops in Iraq, and evidently Americans as a group.
I coupled this comment with another seemingly negative comment regarding Americans,
As I read this debate, no one has yet challenged the notion of why one should need a large military, even if it is democratically decided to have such a thing. Either it is, as Colman surmises, {(my addendum for clarification) Americans want}a fix for the unemployment figures, or it is, as I surmise, absofuckinglutely megolamaniac stupidity, unfit for the 3rd millennium.
Either it is, as Colman surmises, {(my addendum for clarification) Americans want}a fix for the unemployment figures, or it is, as I surmise, absofuckinglutely megolamaniac stupidity, unfit for the 3rd millennium.
But as Drew suggests, the troll comments come when an American might defend these two points (yes a defense with sarcasm), which I made and you can read the following comments. Now of course there are comments, which consist of attacks on these comments being those of a troll, and a defense that the troll is not a troll, but just someone so dumb as to identify the challenge for the erudite. So they are not just comments you missed on a football thread, they are not just comments made by an "American" criticizing his country--make comments defending even truly ludicrous comments about America on this site, and get "trolled".
I can recall giving you a 2, long ago, which is not equivalent to calling you a troll. This may have happened twice, I don't remember. It was when your comments were yelled in capitals and included many expletives.
You know perfectly well that you come here in a contrarian spirit. You have in fact benefitted from a great deal of tolerance, and a lot of users have joined in discussion with you (though most have tired of it). You have not been insulted and called a troll at every turn, nor have you been extensively troll-rated, as far as I know. Don't whine that you're being picked on.
PS Note to you and Drew: your complaint about the "staying the course" comment is pure, 100% American-exceptionalist BS. Stick it where I think and smoke it.
