"Had some success in "finding something which corresponds with your position", have you, Arcus?"
Indeed I did, I even managed to quote it correctly for accuracy. :)
"At least I don't have the effrontery to go around quoting myself."
Perhaps that is because you have yet to present a novel idea?
"I invite you to go back and see which of us started the "critical" bullshit."
Why Obama Needs to be a One Term President
Posted by Gaytor on November 21, 2010 at 11:17am in Politics, Economics, Civil and Reproductive Rights, International Conflicts
"This is an on-line forum - not a scholarly work."
All my work is scholarly in nature and reviewed to not be inaccurate.
"An informal writing style is entirely appropriate."
Fuck yeah I agree. Doesn't excuse being inaccurate tho.
"If you've got something to say about the CONTENT of my posts"
I believe my initial criticism was of Gayto's butchering of Ben Franklin. Then you complained about the content of my post...
"you're more than welcome to express your opinion and I'll respect it. But if you're here to prove how pedantic you can be, please just skip my posts"
So I'm 'more than welcome to express my opinion', though not if I pay attention to detail. In that case, I'm apparently not welcomed to do so.
And lastly, thank you for thinking my attitude is superior:
"Bring your superior attitude (...) your posts I shall read." ~Mike Long
"Liberty": The right to do what the fuck you want to without anyone stopping you.
"Justice": The removal of said personal liberties in favor of the rights of society as a whole.
"Safety": Protection of the individual from those who seek unjust liberties .
Some people become married, thus signing away the liberty of private property (if your spouse goes bankrupt, so do you) in favor of a marriage contract (justice) to increase your safety (having a legally regarded spouse to support you).
Not a liberty I'm ever prepared to suffer to justice seeing as a strict pre-nup is the first thing I'll demand if I'm forced into it, but that's just me. :)
(Though I've already signed away the liberty of personal revenge in favor of the justice system's revenge to increase my safety from others willing to take justice into their own hands.)
As soon as I read your topic I knew what was following...some of you Americans are truly confused...your countries past leaders caused everyones need for this type of security measures and you blame the guy coming in, the world loves him but you hate him and gave up on him cause a few out of millions were insulted...and we all know if there was a bomb you would blame security for not doing a better job...a few idiots at an airport carry their positions to far and out of the 10's of millions who fly daily you think one or two concerns make up the need for revolt...its your American policies which creates wars, as I am not sure if you know what that statement actually means, "American Foriegn Policy"...it means your big business goes into another country, pick a fight , make up excuses to invade and do so for the expansion of your big business and then send over the poor to die for that expansion, the whole time calling the poor defenders of that country "terrorists"...your innocent and therefor you remain blind to how the world sees you...or are you not aware that wars are caused by someone wanting to invade another for its wealth regardless of excuse...its all through out history, take a few lessons...but stop feeling sorry for yourselves...and what is this last statement about finding the one who always stands up for you...since when has any politician done that anywhere? And as far as your "junk" I doubt it would cause any concern!
PS; after all these years all of a sudden gays wanting to get married is a big deal, besides in a bible thumping group like your country, if you want to be inpower you have to favor those fools...you know the ones...the ones you and I argue on this site, ya those ones, they run your country and if your a politician guess what is the sad truth about what you have to do and the reason being...you and yours need to get out there and get atheist voting and when you become the majority of voters guess what...you'll have homosexuals swinging from the chandeliers...but if the majority of them work at the airports...it will not matter if they change the rules of the search...they are going to want to feel your junk, so pucker up baby and get that vote!
But stop blaming the guy who is doing the best job for your entire country along with the world, he is correcting what someone else did as he fights with thumpers who control your country, give him some room...
Oh the perils of being the most powerful country in the world. We asked for it... or did we? Not really, we were actually trying to mind our own goddamned business, but the Japanese insisted (well, we kind of cut off their oil supply) and we obliged. So here we are playing "World Police" and swinging a very big stick.
It's a shame that we focus on the rougher points while ignoring the good that we are doing in the world. No one seems to talk about the humanitarian missions we do throughout the world. I am currently on one and it feels good to be a part of something like this. We've been doing Pacific Partnership deployments since 2004. Please check it out. I never knew about it until I became a part of it. More people should know about this sort of stuff.
It sounds like Ron Paul would be a good candidate for you. You may find his statements on the TSA as well as other issues such as the regime change in Belarus appealing. I haven't looked into him much, but I know I don't agree with all his stances. We've got a little over a year to see who is going to step up to the plate and gain our vote.
“Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same policies.”
— Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope
I'm an ex-pat, but I agree that the U.S. does a lot of good in the world. But no one talks about it - even if they're willing to conceed it. Why? It's just not all that interesting. We (pretty much everybody) talk about the things we'd change, not about the things we agree with.
I disagree with Carroll Quigley, though. The new right in the States does NOT have "approximately the same policies" as the left (not including Obama and the "blue dog" Democrats). The right actually wants to take us all back a century or two when workers had NO rights and barely enough to keep them alive, much less health and dignity.
The Republican Party has essentially two constituencies: the extremely rich (including the wannabes) and people stupid enough to believe that giving the rich tax breaks will, in some way, benefit the rest of us.
The right wants desperately to retain God and to improve his position because God is on their side; and, with God on your side, everything you do is correct.
What Nixon's administration learned is that there are enough stupid people to swing virtually any election. And it's true. If you look at the standard bell graph of intelligence with an IQ of 100 in the middle, you find that about 25% have an IQ of less than 86. So even though these people may need assistance with basic mental chores like balancing a checkbook, they still have the right to vote. All you need to do is tell these people that the other side is against God, and they're yours. No. These days the right has an entirely different agenda.