Our President
POSTED BY: howdyrockerbaby1
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 16:36
VIEWED: 49385
PAGE 11 of 24
Quote:Oh sure, I see your point. I'm of the opinion that this anti-french thing is so rediculous it demonstrates the insanity of American cultural currents (and assumes I'm correct about the origins of the 'joke' I mention). American cultural hegomany worldwide is not what I'm on about in this case... though I could!
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Ghoulman wrote:Quote:
... it just goes to show how hurtful, incestuous, and insane, American culture is. Reading certain posts above I gotta wonder if lobotomies are dirt cheap below the 49th.
Isn't this statement the same type of stereotypical nonsense you are opposed to from some Americans about the French above?
Seems to me that maybe the U.S. has not cornered the market on stereotypes.
Just sayin'.
Please, don't make me talk about Canadian culture because it's smug crap! Upper Cans anyho, we Maritimers actually do have a culture unlike the wonks in Ontario. Take that Globe and Mail!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Oh sure, I see your point. I'm of the opinion that this anti-french thing is so rediculous it demonstrates the insanity of American cultural currents (and assumes I'm correct about the origins of the 'joke' I mention). American cultural hegomany worldwide is not what I'm on about in this case... though I could!
I normally just laugh and shrug these things off, but thought otherwise in this case, because it's usage was in such poor elitist taste. If you are going to use words please:
A)Know how to properly spell them
B)know what they mean and use them properly.
hegemony
\He*gem`o*ny\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. ? guide, leader, fr. ? to go before.] Leadership; preponderant influence or authority; -- usually applied to the relation of a government or state to its neighbors or confederates. --Lieber.
Since America is a Leading Member in the UN,by leading I mean a Nation with Veto power and the ability to back itself up (unlike some nations who cower in fear and capitulate to terrorists), I would have to say America is indeed a Hegemony in a good way.
When lightning strikes, someone gets sick, someone stubs their proverbial toes in another part of the world, what country is asked first for Aid? Answer: The U.S.
What country gets condemned when they don't give "enough" Aid? Answer: The U.S.
Our American culture is indeed a Hegemony, built upon freedom and democracy, with one of the World's largest economies, largest free press, most liberal media/entertainment forum on the face of the planet,also a good thing. This is hardly something to scoff at or condemn.
Normally "Hegemony" is used in a negative sense by socially embittered Socialists (this normally falls into the middle to upper class elitists) who find it politically correct to portray a "farcical Socially Conscious, anti-establishment anti-economist" front, when they sit back and reap the benefits of it's very existence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
When I moved into my dream house, I naturally expected to breathe good air and experience good health in the latter part of my sixth decade. Instead, after a hike in fine, blue-sky weather that was marred by criss-crossed persistent contrails, I got deathly sick in my upper respiratory tract.
I came to the inescapable conclusion that these aerosols seemed to be a prime cause of my health problems. I have all the symptoms of barium poisoning, and it has been determined by other researchers (Note well: RESEARCHERS, not conspiracy theorists) that barium salts are part of the aerosols. There is no doubt these aerosols exist.
I'm sorry to hear about your health problems from the gas contrails. I guess I'm a bit confused. Why arent you taking your white pill?
I thought everybody knew about the 'little white pill'.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Please, don't make me talk about Canadian culture because it's smug crap! Upper Cans anyho, we Maritimers actually do have a culture unlike the wonks in Ontario. Take that Globe and Mail!
Personally I would think that people in Toronto (and surrounding area) being wonky as they are is what there culture is. You shouldn't really lump Ontario all together, too big. ie I doubt that people in Kenora are the same as those in Toronto.
I as well think that the G&M is well... I really should use that word
Let's just say that I do agree with you here.I'd be curious on your take on us in Manitoba. Contact me through the FFF.net messaging if you don't want to bore the others with these details
----
"Hello, my name is SigmaNunki and I'm addicted to
s""Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nervouspete: And by the way, I am English, and I feel very strongly about America. You kicked our arses back in 1776, but we look to you to find your way to the first true ideal of a country. Even though we are cynics and disagree with you frequently, even though we laugh at you and mock you, we secretly are fascinated by you and want you to become something as noble as your heroes wanted it to be, badly. And cheers for putting yourselves on the line in World War II.
And never dismiss me as a liberal. God, that really annoys me.
Thank you Pete, for that..it made me smile. I don't think the US kicked the English arses in The American Revolution, I merely think we were more stubborn...hehe. Personally, I thank god every day for Brits like Tony Blair, and his predecessors,Margaret Thatcher, and Winston Churchill.
One of my favorite Churchill quotes: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
Another :) "Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly. -- (replying to Lady Astor's comment 'Sir, you're drunk!')
and finally, that which stands true even today , Prime minister Winston Churchill's summation to the gathered delegates at St. James's Place, London, June 12, 1941
: "This then, my lords and gentlemen, is the message which we send forth today to all states and nations, bound or free, to all the men in all the lands who care for freedom's cause. To our Allies and well-wishers in Europe, to our American friends and helpers drawing ever closer in their might across the ocean, this is the message-lift up your hearts, all will come right. Out of depths of sorrow and sacrifice will be born again the glory of mankind."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by richardecheandia:
Refuses to obey the Geneva convention in our completely lawless treatment of Afghan POWs (many American former POWs fear how nations will treat our soldiers in the future because we've invented something called enemy combatants (whatever the f*ck that is)
to answer this question, taken from Wikipedia of all places..hehe. Hope this clarifies things :)
The term was first introduced in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):
"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand make theoretical distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants and the legal status thereof."
Historical basis in international law and practice
Prisoners of war
The Second Hague Convention of 1899 defined the requirements for combatants to be eligible for treatment as prisoners of war.
"Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
"Article. 3. The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war."
Those terms thus divide people in a warzone into two classes, each of which is further subdivided into two. There are first armies and militias and then those not in armies and militias. Those in armies and militias have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture. The distinction of combatant and non-combatant is then applied. Those in armies and militias, whether combatant or non-combatant have the right to be treated as prisoners of war. An army chaplain or doctor is a non-combatant, whereas an ordinary soldier is a combatant. For those outside of armies and militias, by convention known as civilians, the right of being treated as a prisoner of war does not apply. However, the definition of combatant then becomes critical. A civilian who is a non-combatant is not eligible for the protections of prisoner of war status, but is eligible for protection under other statutes. Those are, for example, not being deliberately targeted by military action and other traditional protections. A civilian who is a combatant on the other hand has neither the protection of being able to be a prisoner of war, nor the protection of being a civilian non-combatant.
Protected persons
Those not eligible for prisoner of war status are cal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree here and further that these folks should be damn glad that they are just ambiguously defined as enemy combatants and *not* as "unlawful combatants". Unlawful combatants are generally hung or shot as they are found - although sometimes they are quartered (no, not medieval type 'drawn -n- quarter') , bargained or traded away for our own field spies.
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:Quote:
Originally posted by richardecheandia:
Refuses to obey the Geneva convention in our completely lawless treatment of Afghan POWs (many American former POWs fear how nations will treat our soldiers in the future because we've invented something called enemy combatants (whatever the f*ck that is)
to answer this question, taken from Wikipedia of all places..hehe. Hope this clarifies things :)
The term was first introduced in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):
...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Oh sure, I see your point. I'm of the opinion that this anti-french thing is so rediculous it demonstrates the insanity of American cultural currents (and assumes I'm correct about the origins of the 'joke' I mention). American cultural hegomany worldwide is not what I'm on about in this case... though I could!
I normally just laugh and shrug these things off, but thought otherwise in this case, because it's usage was in such poor elitist taste. If you are going to use words please:
A)Know how to properly spell them
B)know what they mean and use them properly.
hegemony
\He*gem`o*ny\, n. [Gr. ?, fr. ? guide, leader, fr. ? to go before.] Leadership; preponderant influence or authority; -- usually applied to the relation of a government or state to its neighbors or confederates. --Lieber.
Since America is a Leading Member in the UN,by leading I mean a Nation with Veto power and the ability to back itself up (unlike some nations who cower in fear and capitulate to terrorists), I would have to say America is indeed a Hegemony in a good way.
When lightning strikes, someone gets sick, someone stubs their proverbial toes in another part of the world, what country is asked first for Aid? Answer: The U.S.
What country gets condemned when they don't give "enough" Aid? Answer: The U.S.
Our American culture is indeed a Hegemony, built upon freedom and democracy, with one of the World's largest economies, largest free press, most liberal media/entertainment forum on the face of the planet,also a good thing. This is hardly something to scoff at or condemn.
Normally "Hegemony" is used in a negative sense by socially embittered Socialists (this normally falls into the middle to upper class elitists) who find it politically correct to portray a "farcical Socially Conscious, anti-establishment anti-economist" front, when they sit back and reap the benefits of it's very existence.
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?
Quote:
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.
Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ruxton, I believe you believe what you have written.. I won't try to convince you otherwise.. however there is one thing you said that I have to object to because it is not true. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. That is, "we are all conditioned from a very young age to trust our government".
This is the USA. We have been conditioned from a young age to not trust governments. To suspect our own but to be even more leary of anyone else's government. Why do you think most Republicans are for smaller government? We don't trust it.. but there are somethings that only a common federal government can accomplish, like the common defense. But I personally don't trust government in general.. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As far as thinking that the US government faked 9/11 that's just too far off the deep end for me. It doesn't make any sense to me that George Bush or his administration would benefit from doing the things your taking about. Certainly the USA isn't benefiting.
I do think that there are countries that are angry and embarassed for purely economic reasons with the US decision to continue the war on Saddam's Iraq. The anger and embarassment seems to have colored their international politics.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When did it become cool to have War's with inanimate objects or intangible ideas.
"War on Drugs", "War on Terror",
Is it because we'd just look silly having a war on druggies. Booze is the best selling drug ever, yet it's legal. Didn't we learn anything from the "war on booze" aka prohibition.
A war on terrorists isn't a terrible, but when did they become Iraq. There were terrorists in Iraq sure, but come on, it was not a threat. In the whole country they couldn't even get one fighter into the air to fight us off. As for WMD's, yeah there bad, but so isn't a carving knife in the wrong hands. I was on the bandwagon with all the it's a "new" kind of war. I feel like they bait and switched this "new warfare" for Iraq.
Since this is already just an incoherent rambling mish mash, let me add on last question: Did we really go from having a Rhodes scholar to a barely C student as our fearless leader???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME