|
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
jps wrote:
**** the average American Ah yes, the Dems mission statement. -- Skipper |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
|
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
Bert Robbins wrote:
Why don't you paint a picture for us of an "Ugly American." We, "Ugly Americans", will then respond with a poratriat of an Ugly Canadian and an Ugly European. What would you do...take your picture, add a little class clothes, clean it up, and pass it off? |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... That was not the question Jim. What is *your* impression of what you call an "Ugly American" is? IMO. The "Ugly American" is the type of person who, when visiting another country, will not try the local cuisine but will look for the nearest McDonalds. This person will always rundown the local people as not being as good as the average American. They will say that "it can be done better and cheaper in America. They will say that the armed might of America will solve the world's problems. This Ugly American knows little of the ways of life in other countries. For example, the Ugly American does not even know that there are cities in China that are more modern than most in the USA. These are just a few examples. There are many more. Jim |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
Len wrote:
You can say that but where is the proof? One of the great things about America today, is that the Looney Left has been relegated to little more than barking dogs BECAUSE of their inept leadership in the past. Most of Americas problems can be traced to these loonies. Korea, Cuba, Iran, forced redistribution of income, and an assortment of problems brought on by illegal aliens. These lefties are outraged because their outrageous policies have cause voters to give them no say whatsoever in the leadership of this country. Look at a political map of the US. Find the red and blue states. There is the proof you're seeking, the libs have been swept to the corners. Tends to keep most of the country clean. -- Skipper |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:28:56 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote:
All I will say here is: Carter had no megalomane, expensive plans like Reagan. But I admit I have no extensive knowledge of the Carter economic performance. LOL! Do you realize what you just said? LOL! do you even realize you just admitted you would never admit anything in any discussion even if you knew it was 100% true... You would consider it a weakness when you would see the point in your (any) opponents view. Thats what makes you a real republican. And thats why we will never reach any sensible result debating. I admit I have my prejudices and lacks of knowledge. You won't even think of admitting that. You would still persist in saying it's the truth even if you know you're wrong. There is a big analogy to your persistance in considering your own view points in this thread as facts and when someone says otherwise you set another standard. And when they use a innocent word like "act like boring child" to point out your repetitive way of arguing without adding ANYthing, you overreact and pretend to be o so offended. And on top of that YOU call ME a whiner ? You win, Jim. You're much better than me in manipulating and namecalling. For my own sake I am glad you are. My dad was right. "never discuss with ... (a certain type of people I can't describe here due to your sensitive personality) cause they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience...." I salute you, Jim. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Len" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:28:56 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: All I will say here is: Carter had no megalomane, expensive plans like Reagan. But I admit I have no extensive knowledge of the Carter economic performance. LOL! Do you realize what you just said? LOL! do you even realize you just admitted you would never admit anything in any discussion even if you knew it was 100% true... You would consider it a weakness when you would see the point in your (any) opponents view. Thats what makes you a real republican. And thats why we will never reach any sensible result debating. I admit I have my prejudices and lacks of knowledge. You won't even think of admitting that. You would still persist in saying it's the truth even if you know you're wrong. There is a big analogy to your persistance in considering your own view points in this thread as facts and when someone says otherwise you set another standard. And when they use a innocent word like "act like boring child" to point out your repetitive way of arguing without adding ANYthing, you overreact and pretend to be o so offended. And on top of that YOU call ME a whiner ? LOL! When unable to defend one's positions in a debate, attack the opposition. You win, Jim. Thanks. You're much better than me in manipulating and namecalling. Please show any name calling I did in this thread. The only name calling I could find is from you. I salute you, Jim. Thank you. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:28:56 -0500, *JimH* wrote:
"Len" wrote in message ... You want facts? Fact: Reagan inherited an economy from Carter with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and gas shortages. Is not a fact, but the way you set your period-boundaries and focus on Carter. You don't relate to previous presidencies. You just pick what you can use. Presenting this statement as a fact also denies other influences like world economy. Such simplifications usually deminish the value of an argument. It doesn't deserve the term fact. All I will say here is: Carter had no megalomane, expensive plans like Reagan. But I admit I have no extensive knowledge of the Carter economic performance. LOL! Do you realize what you just said? ROFLOMAO! Do you realize you're doing EXACTLY what the OP was talking about? Obsessing about what some US president did 20 years ago, arguing over some minor detail of the US ecomony from that far back - you do realize that: 1. The rest of the world doesn't CARE who was a better US president 2. The rest of the world doesn't even care who was the better leader of THEIR country 20 years ago! We spend much more time arguing about whether or not Todd Bertuzzi should be playing hockey than whether or not insert name of Federal Cabinet Minister who overspent his expense acct should be playing politics. And the same rhetoric, over and over: "All the World's problems are the fault of {republicans, democrats} and the World would be a perfect place if {democrats,republicans} ran it" "Oh, yeah??? What about minor incident from 20 years ago? If {republicans,democrats} had been in charge, that never would have happened!" "Oh, yeah??? Well, just like all {republicans,democrats}, you're a poopy-pants!" "No I'm not: you are!" And so on. There! now nobody has to post ANY political tripe on this NG any mo just refer to this post and indicate whether you agree with first or second element of the set. :) Lloyd |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:28:56 -0500, *JimH* wrote: "Len" wrote in message ... You want facts? Fact: Reagan inherited an economy from Carter with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and gas shortages. Is not a fact, but the way you set your period-boundaries and focus on Carter. You don't relate to previous presidencies. You just pick what you can use. Presenting this statement as a fact also denies other influences like world economy. Such simplifications usually deminish the value of an argument. It doesn't deserve the term fact. All I will say here is: Carter had no megalomane, expensive plans like Reagan. But I admit I have no extensive knowledge of the Carter economic performance. LOL! Do you realize what you just said? ROFLOMAO! Do you realize you're doing EXACTLY what the OP was talking about? Obsessing about what some US president did 20 years ago, arguing over some minor detail of the US ecomony from that far back - you do realize that: 1. The rest of the world doesn't CARE who was a better US president 2. The rest of the world doesn't even care who was the better leader of THEIR country 20 years ago! We spend much more time arguing about whether or not Todd Bertuzzi should be playing hockey than whether or not insert name of Federal Cabinet Minister who overspent his expense acct should be playing politics. And the same rhetoric, over and over: "All the World's problems are the fault of {republicans, democrats} and the World would be a perfect place if {democrats,republicans} ran it" "Oh, yeah??? What about minor incident from 20 years ago? If {republicans,democrats} had been in charge, that never would have happened!" "Oh, yeah??? Well, just like all {republicans,democrats}, you're a poopy-pants!" "No I'm not: you are!" And so on. There! now nobody has to post ANY political tripe on this NG any mo just refer to this post and indicate whether you agree with first or second element of the set. :) Lloyd But Mom.........he started it! Take it up with your socialist buddy Len. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
" *JimH*" wrote in message . .. "Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:28:56 -0500, *JimH* wrote: "Len" wrote in message ... You want facts? Fact: Reagan inherited an economy from Carter with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and gas shortages. Is not a fact, but the way you set your period-boundaries and focus on Carter. You don't relate to previous presidencies. You just pick what you can use. Presenting this statement as a fact also denies other influences like world economy. Such simplifications usually deminish the value of an argument. It doesn't deserve the term fact. All I will say here is: Carter had no megalomane, expensive plans like Reagan. But I admit I have no extensive knowledge of the Carter economic performance. LOL! Do you realize what you just said? ROFLOMAO! Do you realize you're doing EXACTLY what the OP was talking about? Obsessing about what some US president did 20 years ago, arguing over some minor detail of the US ecomony from that far back - you do realize that: 1. The rest of the world doesn't CARE who was a better US president 2. The rest of the world doesn't even care who was the better leader of THEIR country 20 years ago! We spend much more time arguing about whether or not Todd Bertuzzi should be playing hockey than whether or not insert name of Federal Cabinet Minister who overspent his expense acct should be playing politics. And the same rhetoric, over and over: "All the World's problems are the fault of {republicans, democrats} and the World would be a perfect place if {democrats,republicans} ran it" "Oh, yeah??? What about minor incident from 20 years ago? If {republicans,democrats} had been in charge, that never would have happened!" "Oh, yeah??? Well, just like all {republicans,democrats}, you're a poopy-pants!" "No I'm not: you are!" And so on. There! now nobody has to post ANY political tripe on this NG any mo just refer to this post and indicate whether you agree with first or second element of the set. :) Lloyd But Mom.........he started it! Take it up with your socialist buddy Len. Actually, the correct word would be 'comrade', not buddy. I thought you were leaving here. Is your new forum a flop already Lloyd? |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
... Len, I do not think that a lot of the Americans on this newsgroup can comprehend what an "Ugly American" really is. They look into the mirror and only see a reflection of what they want to see. Why don't you paint a picture for us of an "Ugly American." We, "Ugly Americans", will then respond with a poratriat of an Ugly Canadian and an Ugly European. You are a stupid little man. Ugly American: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. All the same. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
|
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Ugly American: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. All the same. Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Peru, Venezuela All of these places have seen the "Ugly American" close up. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:39:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Len, I do not think that a lot of the Americans on this newsgroup can comprehend what an "Ugly American" really is. They look into the mirror and only see a reflection of what they want to see. Why don't you paint a picture for us of an "Ugly American." We, "Ugly Americans", will then respond with a poratriat of an Ugly Canadian and an Ugly European. You are a stupid little man. Ugly American: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. All the same. Not to mention Ugly Muslims. http://tinyurl.com/extdp OK. But, it has nothing to do with the three debacles I pointed out to the child. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Jim Carter" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Ugly American: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. All the same. Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Peru, Venezuela All of these places have seen the "Ugly American" close up. So how much does Canada commit annually to it's military Jim? Can you admit that your country has benefited greatly from the "Ugly American"? How about we depend on your guys from now on to be the worlds peace keeper? Are you up to that task financially? |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:12:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:39:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Len, I do not think that a lot of the Americans on this newsgroup can comprehend what an "Ugly American" really is. They look into the mirror and only see a reflection of what they want to see. Why don't you paint a picture for us of an "Ugly American." We, "Ugly Americans", will then respond with a poratriat of an Ugly Canadian and an Ugly European. You are a stupid little man. Ugly American: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. All the same. Not to mention Ugly Muslims. http://tinyurl.com/extdp OK. But, it has nothing to do with the three debacles I pointed out to the child. True, but let's not limit the term Ugly. I mean, what about Algeria in the late '50s? Ugly French. The Greenpeace "Rainbow Warrior" murder committed by the Ugly French Government. In fact, if you really want to use the term ugly, about all 140 governments in the world can be termed "ugly" in one sense or another with one or two exceptions - Canada being one. Ya know, you're OK. :-) Back to binis, aka "business": The existence of one sin doesn't make another sin acceptable. Or, as mothers used to say, "Just because all your friends are jumping off a bridge doesn't mean you have to, also". This country's mission is to set an example for perfection, even though that's elusive. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... "Jim Carter" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Ugly American: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. All the same. Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Peru, Venezuela All of these places have seen the "Ugly American" close up. So how much does Canada commit annually to it's military Jim? Can you admit that your country has benefited greatly from the "Ugly American"? How about we depend on your guys from now on to be the worlds peace keeper? Are you up to that task financially? There's your delusion: That *we* are supposed to be the world's peacekeepers. Where did you get THAT idea from? |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Peru, Venezuela All of these places have seen the "Ugly American" close up. I would point out that without the collusion of their governments, this wouldn't have happened. And I seriously have to question Argentina as being a problem created by Ugly Americans. More like Ugly Germans. you're most likely correct on this one! Jim |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
snip.. There's nothing Ugly about Canada - except for Robertson Screws that is. Or maybe Don, but I can't say that he's ugly - never met him. :) Opinions vary! |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
" *JimH*" wrote in message
... So how much does Canada commit annually to it's military Jim? Can you admit that your country has benefited greatly from the "Ugly American"? How about we depend on your guys from now on to be the worlds peace keeper? Are you up to that task financially? Canada's budget for the military for 2005 was 25.8 billion dollars. Canadian Armed Forces consist of 9,500 Navy, 19,500 Army, 14,500 Air Force. All are highly trained professionals. There is approx. 20,000 administration and support personnel. We lost four of our best soldiers, in Afghanistan, due to the arrogance of one Ugly American, Maj. Harry Schmidt of the US Air Force. Canada has not gained any benefit from the "Ugly American". The CIA is not welcomed here. There has been attempts by the CIA to use forged Canadian documents abroad and this was a detriment to Canada. Canada is well known throughout the world as Peace Keepers. Our military budget does support these efforts. Jim |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Jim Carter" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in message ... So how much does Canada commit annually to it's military Jim? Can you admit that your country has benefited greatly from the "Ugly American"? How about we depend on your guys from now on to be the worlds peace keeper? Are you up to that task financially? Canada's budget for the military for 2005 was 25.8 billion dollars. Canadian Armed Forces consist of 9,500 Navy, 19,500 Army, 14,500 Air Force. All are highly trained professionals. There is approx. 20,000 administration and support personnel. We lost four of our best soldiers, in Afghanistan, due to the arrogance of one Ugly American, Maj. Harry Schmidt of the US Air Force. Canada has not gained any benefit from the "Ugly American". The CIA is not welcomed here. There has been attempts by the CIA to use forged Canadian documents abroad and this was a detriment to Canada. Canada is well known throughout the world as Peace Keepers. Our military budget does support these efforts. Jim I am not doubting your commitment to your military, but it is certainly relying on the US military. What I am asking is............let's turn the table and ask that Canada commit major capital to it's military to protect the world and that the US take a second seat to the action. As a percentage of overall revenue, how much does Canada spend on it's military now? Could it afford to spend (as a percentage) what the US is currently budgeting? |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 00:21:05 GMT, Don White wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: snip.. There's nothing Ugly about Canada - except for Robertson Screws that is. Or maybe Don, but I can't say that he's ugly - never met him. :) Opinions vary! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ....or beer holder |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
" *JimH*" wrote in message ... I am not doubting your commitment to your military, but it is certainly relying on the US military. What I am asking is............let's turn the table and ask that Canada commit major capital to it's military to protect the world and that the US take a second seat to the action. As a percentage of overall revenue, how much does Canada spend on it's military now? Could it afford to spend (as a percentage) what the US is currently budgeting? Canada does not rely on the US Military for anything! What would you ask Canada to protect the world from? The USA in it's country grab for more oil? Canada does not have the enemies that the USA has throughout the world. Canada has no need to spend huge amounts of it's money on the military, as does our neighbor to the south. This is a nation of peace keepers, not war mongers. Jim |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Jim Carter" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in message ... I am not doubting your commitment to your military, but it is certainly relying on the US military. What I am asking is............let's turn the table and ask that Canada commit major capital to it's military to protect the world and that the US take a second seat to the action. As a percentage of overall revenue, how much does Canada spend on it's military now? Could it afford to spend (as a percentage) what the US is currently budgeting? Canada does not rely on the US Military for anything! What would you ask Canada to protect the world from? The USA in it's country grab for more oil? Canada does not have the enemies that the USA has throughout the world. Canada has no need to spend huge amounts of it's money on the military, as does our neighbor to the south. It's because of its neighbor to the south that Canada doesn't have to spend a lot of money on its military. Instead of buying all of those natural resources from you guys, what's to stop China from marching onto Canadian soil and just taking it? |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... It's because of its neighbor to the south that Canada doesn't have to spend a lot of money on its military. Instead of buying all of those natural resources from you guys, what's to stop China from marching onto Canadian soil and just taking it? Canada does not rely on the US Military. We do not have the "enemies" that you have. We are a nation that uses diplomacy. China does not have the bad manners that other countries have. They do not march in and take over countries. ;-) Jim |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Jim Carter" wrote in message ... " *JimH*" wrote in message ... I am not doubting your commitment to your military, but it is certainly relying on the US military. What I am asking is............let's turn the table and ask that Canada commit major capital to it's military to protect the world and that the US take a second seat to the action. As a percentage of overall revenue, how much does Canada spend on it's military now? Could it afford to spend (as a percentage) what the US is currently budgeting? Canada does not rely on the US Military for anything! And the Tooth Fairy is real. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:50:59 +0000, Len wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 05:08:00 GMT, "JAS" wrote: Hi Len, You must be really happy to live somewhere where it doesn't matter what you think. I know I am. I think living in the free world is not the same as having to speak rep talk; be xenophobic; just worry about your own well being and call any other initiative socialist madness; just deny any sign of negative consequences of your behaviour; etc etc. Regards, Len. Gouda cheese rules! The best comes from a farm just outside Stolwyjk. So there! -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote: Len, I do not think that a lot of the Americans on this newsgroup can comprehend what an "Ugly American" really is. Why don't you paint a picture for us of an "Ugly American." You are a stupid little man. And you are such a class act, Kanter. -- Skipper |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
Jim Carter wrote:
All of these places have seen the "Ugly American" close up. We've also seen a few ugly un-Americans posting to this NG close up. -- Skipper |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
Jim Carter wrote:
What would you ask Canada to protect the world from? Hell, even their geese come south to the US for protection. -- Skipper |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
NOYB wrote:
Instead of buying all of those natural resources from you guys, what's to stop China from marching onto Canadian soil and just taking it? Talk to residents of Montreal and you'll hear that they believe Hong Kong has already purchased most of Quebec. -- Skipper |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
*JimH* wrote:
Canada does not rely on the US Military for anything! And the Tooth Fairy is real. LOL -- Skipper |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:39:29 -0500, " *JimH*" wrote: Personally, I'd vote for supporting Canada's entire military budget, but only if they bomb Quebec back into the stone age. ~~ mutter - French speaking dorks - mutter ~~ Better be careful. Just this weekend I saw the top Quebecer in Parliament talk about Quebec having it's own army. How many miles from Quebec border to your town? |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Instead of buying all of those natural resources from you guys, what's to stop China from marching onto Canadian soil and just taking it? Because China these days doesn't behave like the United States? Bzzzzt. Try again. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
|
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Len" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 20:31:44 -0400, " *JimH*" wrote: Care to support your claims with some proof? Just because you say so does not make it fact. (Yawn) Jim, you act like a boring child repeating a senseless question. But the fact you're accompanied by so many alikes makes it necessary to go on.... These aren't just claims or statements, they are facts. You can look 'm up.... I'll try to enlighten you (mission impossible iii) What is a fact? Gorbatsjov was the person who had the right intentions up front and grabbed his chance to stop a dynasty of dictators and reform with all respect due to human values. He luckily had the chance during the last days of a "week" man like tsjernenkov. Whatever president of he us, Eastern Europe would have changed like it did. I'll also tell you what a (dumb and manipulative) statement is. The statement that "it was Reagan who had scared the russian crooks so bad that Gornatsjov had no choice but to abandon the reign of evil and become friends with the great world leader". My goodness, this is funny.... And to know that there are people who actually believe that.... Alzheimer kicks in hard and early I guess.... .... The true reason is they couldn't outspend us! We were ever advancing our military and delivery systems. Imagine if you will the soviet military mind when he learns that US attack subs have been consistently inside soviet protected waters for 10 years and most of the soviet subs have been shadowed undetected for much of that time. Regan began a policy of informing the Russians of these facts by allowing the soviet subs to detect our subs as we come up behind then by our pinging them (One ping is like a radar lock for aircraft). This gave away a tactical advantage but put pressure on the government. Along with pressure on the military Regan put the world press to use. IF you grew up in Poland you probably couldn't hear many of his speeches. He simply pointed out that the Soviet economic system didn't work, that educated people were trying to leave Russia while our country had to patrol it's borders to keep people out. I differ with your statement: "Whatever president of the US, Eastern Europe would have changed like it did." I think it would have taken another 10 years and would have been very brutal with many internal fights and quashing of rebellions. Regan policies and speeches created enough support for Gornatsjov (sp) that he could turn internal Russian politics on a different course instead of the self destructive one it was on. I'd be interested in where you get your news and the books that were used in your education system. We have many here in this country that have a similar view of world events and I'd like to pin down the sources of this. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:47:44 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:12:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message m... On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:39:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Bert Robbins" wrote in message ... Len, I do not think that a lot of the Americans on this newsgroup can comprehend what an "Ugly American" really is. They look into the mirror and only see a reflection of what they want to see. Why don't you paint a picture for us of an "Ugly American." We, "Ugly Americans", will then respond with a poratriat of an Ugly Canadian and an Ugly European. You are a stupid little man. Ugly American: Phillippines, Vietnam, Iraq. All the same. Not to mention Ugly Muslims. http://tinyurl.com/extdp OK. But, it has nothing to do with the three debacles I pointed out to the child. True, but let's not limit the term Ugly. I mean, what about Algeria in the late '50s? Ugly French. The Greenpeace "Rainbow Warrior" murder committed by the Ugly French Government. In fact, if you really want to use the term ugly, about all 140 governments in the world can be termed "ugly" in one sense or another with one or two exceptions - Canada being one. Ya know, you're OK. :-) Back to binis, aka "business": The existence of one sin doesn't make another sin acceptable. Or, as mothers used to say, "Just because all your friends are jumping off a bridge doesn't mean you have to, also". This country's mission is to set an example for perfection, even though that's elusive. Absolutely true in terms of what our Mom's used to say. But my word view isn't limited by what others may say or think. There is no such thing as perfection. And who said that we are perfect? Consider the social progress we've made over the past 40 years or so. 40 years - think about it. In 40 years, the vote was enforceable extended to minorities, women were given active roles in shaping government and business, technology has increased 1,000 fold which has mean a freerer flow of information. As a society we've changed more in 40 years adopting some foreign values, rejecting others. The very fabric of our society is changing as we speak. Whites are about to become a minority believe it or not - in another ten years or so. And yet, when the fecal matter hits the rotating cooling device, who does the world look to? Where do immigrants want to immigrate to? What other society tolerates the virtual imprisonment of some Muslim women (adhering to cultural values) while at the same time promoting values that celebrate their unique humanity? We are more than we think we are and at the same time can improve on what we are. It's the very essence of American society - open, free wheeling and willing to accept change. There will always be fringe elements that ignore what an open society is and attempt to close it if only to try and control it. The progressives had their turn, it's now the conservatives turn and eventually - probably not in our lifetime, but eventually, it will even out and something new and wonderful will emerge from the conflict and confluence of different ideas and values. I don't think our story is over yet - believe me. I see kids today, including my own - doctors, military, state trooper, who are smart, engaged and looking forward to their time to set things straight. The apparent dichotomy of our society can be illustrated by a story that I enjoy telling. Last year over Christmas, my oldest boy came home with some of his friends - six in all, male and female and we went to Midnight Mass. The "kids", officers all, were resplendent in their Dress Blues and after mass, they were standing waiting for us to come out of the church. I happened to be standing close to a friend of mine and his wife who are vehement anti-war activists - very serious folks. He and I were on the Vollies together and we've been friends for years. Anyway, this little girl, about ten or so standing close to us, said aloud pointing to my extended family "Are those Army men?" And my friend bent down and said with pride and"No - they are Marines". Then he turned to me, shook my hand and said "I pray that we never have to ask them to do what they do so well." That's the how it should work. Well said, I wish I had said it rather than responding to the bait. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
JimH,
Notice the typical liebral ploy...... statements made by "Len" are to be accepted as fact no matter what.......facts presented by you are only opinions. " *JimH*" wrote in message ... "Len" wrote in message ... You want facts? Fact: Reagan inherited an economy from Carter with double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and gas shortages. Is not a fact, but the way you set your period-boundaries and focus on Carter. You don't relate to previous presidencies. You just pick what you can use. Presenting this statement as a fact also denies other influences like world economy. Such simplifications usually deminish the value of an argument. It doesn't deserve the term fact. All I will say here is: Carter had no megalomane, expensive plans like Reagan. But I admit I have no extensive knowledge of the Carter economic performance. LOL! Do you realize what you just said? Fact: Ronald Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a financial boom with government revenue substantially increasing during his 2 terms. You can say that but where is the proof? In your words this is interpretation cause there may have been other explanations for the development you mention, if it was there in the first place. Sorry, still no fact, even by your own standards... Sure it is. Show where it is not true. Fact: Reagan cut federal spending as a share of the GDP almost 1% during his 2 terms. No comment from you. Good, so we agree on this fact. Fact: Reagan is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted non-defense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term. Again, no comment from you. You must once again agree with this fact. Fact: Reagan cut the budget of 8 agencies out of 15 during his first term and the budget of 10 out of 15 during his second term. You can tell me anything here. I see your declarations but I see no proof. But I guess you expect me just to believe what you say... Are you saying that Reagan did not cut the budget of 8 agencies out of 15 during his first term and the budget of 10 out of 15 during his second term? Fact: Reagan brought the USSR to its feet (financially) with them trying to compete with our Strategic Defense Initiative and a continued space program. This was one factor in bringing out the collapse of the USSR. Interpretation and immense speculation. Sorry, no fact, not even close. You can choose to ignore those facts. You previously argued against facts I made about the Carter economy then closed with a statement you really know nothing about it. Such is the case once again my friend. You really don't know what you are talking about. Fact: Reagan was one of the most popular US Presidents in history, getting 525 of 538 electoral votes and 59% of the popular votes in the 1984 election. Does that say something about Reagan or about the american public or about the tv show the us political process really is...? LOL!! How about 'dem apples Len? As far as facts were remotely in sight (most of your post was speculation, selective use of history and interpretation): where can I find the proof, Jim? Try google.........it is a great search tool and quite easy to use. Let me know if you need help figuring out how to use it. The proof is there. And all done without an attack on you or an insult to you. Well in that case, you must feel you're a better person than I am.... If you say so. Now come back once you learn to play nice. I don' take orders. Fine. Do as you want. But seriously Jim. You are blowing my using the term "acting like a boring child" out of proportion. Your roleplaying like being that much offended ( "attack" is way too strong a word for this, "insult" is also too strong) for gaining moral territory in our discussion is indeed really childish.... And that is no longer a term used jokingly but now is an empirical fact for me. When we take a little distance we will have to conclude that we're not going to be soulmates. You will probably keep using your "being offended" and we'll both grab useable facts or what is presented as facts to prove our point. Maybe we'd better leave it at that. Whining again Len? |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:46:10 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote: The true reason is they couldn't outspend us! We were ever advancing our military and delivery systems. Imagine if you will the soviet military mind when he learns that US attack subs have been consistently inside soviet protected waters for 10 years and most of the soviet subs have been shadowed undetected for much of that time. Regan began a policy of informing the Russians of these facts by allowing the soviet subs to detect our subs as we come up behind then by our pinging them (One ping is like a radar lock for aircraft). This gave away a tactical advantage but put pressure on the government. Along with pressure on the military Regan put the world press to use. IF you grew up in Poland you probably couldn't hear many of his speeches. He simply pointed out that the Soviet economic system didn't work, that educated people were trying to leave Russia while our country had to patrol it's borders to keep people out. I differ with your statement: "Whatever president of the US, Eastern Europe would have changed like it did." I think it would have taken another 10 years and would have been very brutal with many internal fights and quashing of rebellions. Regan policies and speeches created enough support for Gornatsjov (sp) that he could turn internal Russian politics on a different course instead of the self destructive one it was on. I'd be interested in where you get your news and the books that were used in your education system. We have many here in this country that have a similar view of world events and I'd like to pin down the sources of this. Jeff, My sources are the news, opinion-papers and comments by america- watchers (of various bloodtypes). In terms of who deserves the most credit it is unmistakenly Gorbatsjov. Why is it there is such a need to blow up the part Reagan played? Don't you think any president with a smart advisor would have done not exactly the same but would have added in the same amount? Let me put it in another way: What would have become of this alleged "Reagan-directed-end-of-the-cold-war" if Gorbatsjow hadn't been there but another Brenzjnev-type or Chroestjow-type? As another poster here said, Reagan was in the car, he wasn't the driver but he was in the car. I admit to that. But any us president would have been in that car. Regards, Len. |
a bystanders view on the us noise that is made here
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:32:29 +0100, Len wrote:
In terms of who deserves the most credit it is unmistakenly Gorbatsjov. Why is it there is such a need to blow up the part Reagan played? Don't you think any president with a smart advisor would have done not exactly the same but would have added in the same amount? Let me put it in another way: What would have become of this alleged "Reagan-directed-end-of-the-cold-war" if Gorbatsjow hadn't been there but another Brenzjnev-type or Chroestjow-type? I give Gorbachev quite a bit of credit, but it could be they both needed each other to succeed. http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com