Originally posted by Steve Wink:
I hadn't noticed people here hating pensioners. Are you referring to the fact that the state pays a pittance in pension to those who don't have a private pension? Or do you have evidence of something more sinister?
Originally posted by Steve Wink:
Ok, I'm following your logic. What about Americans who dislike Bush, because they dislike his policies. Aren't they opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States, and therefore anti-American?
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
No credit cards, no 'lifestyle' worth living. But a damn good education I think. When you earn every pence it can motivate one to make the most of it...
Approve | Dis-approve | No opinion | |
2002 Mar 8-9 | 80 | 14 | 6 |
2002 Oct 21-22 | 67 | 28 | 5 |
2003 May 19-21 | 66 | 30 | 4 |
2003 Oct 24-26 | 53 | 42 | 5 |
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I am asking because of the tendency recent polls demonstrate:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
One might have heard the saying, the best time of your life is at University.I guess those days are gone.
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
You might also have heard the saying that Education starts when you leave school. Unfortunately you don't get to work with people who have been on the same course. Life skills could be developed at University as well as learning something new.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
"because he's only one person", is not sufficient defense for the anti-Bush crowd to claim they are not anti-American. They don't hate the guy because of his personality, they hate him because of what he represents and the policies the US government enacts.
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
What is it that you disagree with and why?
"Unreasonable" is too subjective. I don't believe providing a critique without offering an alternative is necessarily negative (although giving options is certainly better).[/qb]
Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:
Like with a job humping construction materials or pushing a broom? Radical thought, that! A lot of these hothouse parlor pink are in love with the 'working bloke' as a concept but wouldn't know a working bloke unless he bit them in the ass. And don't think he wouldn't, particularly after a few pints.....![]()
International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
By my count, Powell made twenty-nine claims about Iraqi weapons, programs, behaviors, events, and munitions which at least in theory should have been verifiable once American forces had free run of the country. Some were explicit and concrete, like the claims that "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent," that Iraq "retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant ballistic missiles," or that "Iraq has illegally imported 380 SA-2 rocket engines." A few are vague —the claim for example that "Iraqi intelligence agents" were driving around the countryside in cars full of "key files from military and scientific establishments."
To place the reports side by side is instructive. Kay says nothing whatever about eleven of Powell's twenty-nine claims, which we may take as a functional equivalent of "not found." At the top of this list are the "100–500 tons of chemical weapons agent," the sarin and mustard gas, the possible 25,000 liters of anthrax, the "few dozen" Scud missiles, the "wherewithal to develop smallpox." Not found. The cars full of "key files" being driven around by Iraqi intelligence agents? Not found. The "warheads containing biological warfare agent...hidden in large groves of palm trees"? Not found. The hundreds of documents signed by Iraqi scientists putting them on notice that death would be the punishment for anyone who talked? Not found. The factory with thousands of centrifuges intended to produce fissionable material for atomic bombs with the telltale aluminum tubes? Not found.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16813
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Hi Map! I'm going to make one comment before I go enjoy the holidays with my family. Maybe this will help you, maybe not. Remember, though, it is only one man's opinion.
I define "anti-Americanism" as unreasonable, distorted or automatic disagreement with American policy.
1. Unreasonable: Disagreement with American policy without a valid alternative. For example, appeasement with Hussein was not valid alternative, because during that time he would kill millions more. This is a difficult thing to define, but I think we often agree on at least some of the clearly unreasonable disagreements.
2. Distorted: The whole "America attacked Iraq without world consensus" argument is a distorted argument. We had consensus in the form of UN resolutions. There is no denying this fact. The fact that some of our erstwhile allies backed out at the last minute doesn't change this. That's why we make resolutions, so that parties can't change their mind whenever they feel it is less profitable. Without that assurance, resolutions are worthless, and that's what Hussein was counting on.
3. Automatic: The whole Bush is Satan thing is one of those automatic attacks. By definition, anything remotely American, including a visit by one head of state to another, is perceived as something bad. It's annoying enough that there were people protesting American policy, it was worse that some of these yahoos actually protested the visit, implying that the President of the United States is somehow not fit to visit England. This is "automatic" anti-Americanism. Carping on Bush's DUI arrest is another example. Gz, even Prince Charles has skeletons, and he doesn't get out that much.
So, if you have a reasoned disagreement with American policy, that is not anti-Americanism. For example, let's say you don't like how the post-war effort is going. Identify the specific areas that are problems, and propose useful alternatives, and then we can discuss them. If you don't, then all you're doing is saying "America BAD", and that helps no-one. Chances are even reasonable alternatives won't ever reach anyone with the power to make a difference, but we can use them to teach our children and hope they don't repeat the same mistakes.
One man's view.
Happy Thanksgiving, one and all!
Joe
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
What does that have to do with anything? Job approval encompasses a variety of things. Do you think people overseas really care about domestic US policies such as the economy?
I've made my position clear enough. You keep trying to steer the discussion as if I'm referring simply to people with a couple of minor greivances. You acknowledged in another thread that you understood who exactly I'm talking about.
JM: There are degrees. The Bush bashing and rampant anti-Americanism goes far beyond simple disagreement with one or two of his policies, and is far more vitriolic than what's acceptable. I'd like to think we can all recognize the difference.
MI: Ok, I think we all can agree that calling Bush "murderer" or "Hitler" was plain stupid.
This almost sounds like a Jeff Foxworthy ("You might be a redneck...") routine...
If you burn an upside down representation of the American flag that you decorated with a swastika, you might be anti-American.
If you simultaneously protest against the war in Iraq, the US stands on the ICC and Kyoto, Globalization, and David Blaine, just maybe, you might be anti-American.
If every time the War on Terror is brought up you mention how much better you think the British would have handled things because of their vast experience with the oh-so-similar events involving the IRA... then perhaps you're anti-American.
If you've ever uttered the phrase "bloody Yanks", then there's a good chance you're anti-American.
If you get all warm and fuzzy inside at the prospect of US military difficulties in Iraq, then it's a pretty safe bet you're anti-American.
If you waste an afternoon in the streets of London protesting against the visit of the freely-elected leader of your nation's greatest ally, then there a damn good chance you're anti-American.
I could go on, but you get the point. I never did think Jeff Foxworthy was all that funny though.
Think about it, if I were to make the statement that I loathe every policy enacted by the British government, and I think the leaders are all complete morons and the idiots who put them in place are blind sheep lulled into a stupor by their media, those would be anti-British statements, pure and simple. There's no need to play games and try to claim they're not, recognize them for what they are.
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
(1) He is sincerely religious -- going to church is not merely public relations for the benefit of stupid voters, nor does he see religion merely as a tool to paper a moral veneer over policies actually motivated by Marxist thinking.
(2) He admits and supports the right to keep and bear arms for use in individual self-defense. He has no moral qualms about killing murderers and people who threaten murder.
(3) He is proud, not ashamed, to be an American. For example, he doesn't crawl and beg the forgiveness of African tyrants for the fact that Americans 150 years ago bought some of their slaves. Nor is he apologetic for the fact that some Americans are poor. (It would be truly arrogant to assume that only other countries should have poor people.)
(4) He feels open disdain for both the old Left of the 1930s and the New Left of the 1960s -- properly equating them to the fascists and Nazi-sympathizers of those eras.
(5) Like a typical American, he naively assumes that foreigners love freedom, or would love freedom, as much as he does. (They don't.)
(6) Like an American, he is generous and expects a degree of chivalry from others. ... He feels open contempt for those who could respond to such an act with shouts of joy.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
this sort of repetition of inaccuracy is pure anti-Americanism.
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Yeah, we know there are a lot of anti-Americans there. Always have been, always will be.
Pounding at a thick stone wall won't move it, sometimes, you need to step back to see the way around.
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
![]()
The crime rate in London is getting quite disproportionately high.Kensington and Chelsea ,alone, had about a 30% increase this last year. I haven't heard of any shootings in London. Stabbings, yes.
Tony might be refering to Manchester or nka "Gunchester".
regards
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]
Pounding at a thick stone wall won't move it, sometimes, you need to step back to see the way around.
Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
HS Thomas: "Students go on protest marches about university fees that add to their debt burden."
Maybe students should also protest that the government refuses to supply them with ice-cream. And the ugly and shy students should march demanding that the government provide them with their fair share of sex. The free market in love distributes its goods so unevenly, you know.
Radicals can even organize gang rapes to redistribute the sexual wealth. After all, gang rape is nothing if not _democratic_! ("I don't care if you're not in the mood, lady. We out-vote you, thirty to one. And I see that you have dangerously long fingernails. Just to ensure that you don't use them as an offensive weapon, Officer Bob here is going to hold your arms down 'till we're done.")
Pounding at a thick stone wall won't move it, sometimes, you need to step back to see the way around.
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
The first, really.(My subsequent post clarifies things a bit more).
Now that you mention the second, there are far too many old women beaten up for their pittance of a pension.And as Frank Silbermann would have it, at times they rape the octogenarians in the process. Give your Gran a Gun for Christmas. This gets reported on average 2-3 times a year and it is a recent phenomenon.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
They are taking the country back a hundred years where a Higher Education was only available to those who could afford it. It's stupid, wrong and rubbish and if Students want to march to protest, good for them!
Originally posted by HS Thomas:
Alfred, point taken about Granny and Guns but rather an independent Gran than a dependent one.. But, guns isn't the answer.
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
SCJP1.4, SCWCD
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Map and RK, I am not going to re-argue with you the case for Iraq. UN resolutions, dozens of countries. Please read the UN resolutions and tell me which parts you don't understand.
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Beauty is in the eye of the tiny ad.
Free, earth friendly heat - from the CodeRanch trailboss
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/free-heat
|