|
Post by haj23scfc on Mar 11, 2004 18:03:25 GMT
George Bush - what a legend! A legend?! I could type a 400 page essay on why he isn't a legend. Executed more people than any previous state governor Wanted to wage war on Iraq from day 1 of office Refused to sign the Kyoto agreement (partly because esso would remove their $50 million) Went to war without UN support on a country that posed no threat to the world and now look at it - its a right mess. He also dished contracts for rebuilding Iraq out years before the war. His "war on terrorism" is shit and hasn't worked and its a matter of time before America have a new 9/11 or even we have one. I could go on.... Read that book kenilworth suggested about why people hate america, I have read a bit of it and its very interesting. Stupid white men is a great book but just adds hate rather than explains it! Owner - i could spot truth in every one of Moore's sentences seen as he shows all his sources to nearly all of his sentences in his books and online.
|
|
|
Post by owner on Mar 11, 2004 18:04:53 GMT
KS,
I have no evidence to support the claim that America uses force to back Monsanto. Perhaps you can share that with me.
The trade isn’t voluntary? This implies the use of force, please back up this claim.
An American can be anti-American, he simply needs to hold anti-American views. My point here is that you idolise a liar.
If you can refute a single sentence I’ve uttered I’ll gladly here it. To correct you I don’t state that Islam holds these aims, but that Islamic states do. Their leaders have voiced it often enough, this is not a grey area.
Devoid of empathy and understanding of another culture? My understanding of the culture of Islamic states is posted above, if you can, argue against it. What more do I need to understand about an evil culture other than it’s evil and wants to destroy me? Why do you think I should empathise with my destroyers?
|
|
|
Post by TheWiseMaster on Mar 11, 2004 18:05:40 GMT
Wordwide you will find that the USA is generally despised
There is a natural tendency for the little guys to hate the big one's - ManU and the rest of footer is a good example
The USA are the world's only super power and unfortunately they have used that power badly in recent years. 9/11 gave them the excuse they needed to play it big and their reputation is now in tatters
You could reel off a list ad infinitum of perceived wrongs;
Iraq Israel Afghanistan Anti UN Anti Europe Anti Muslims Guantanamo Complete disregard for the worlds enviroment Corrupt trade practices etc etc
Difficult to be popular when you have adopted the role of world policeman but they regularly score blatant own goals
This is not to say that individual citizens are hated but their citizens will arrive at the table with a heap of baggage
|
|
|
Post by 339187 on Mar 11, 2004 18:06:14 GMT
;D @ slangking Only opinions; hardly truth. Even if it were truth it wouldn't hurt cos I don't give a flying fuck (national trait, that )
|
|
|
Post by haj23scfc on Mar 11, 2004 18:07:29 GMT
Look at the power the religious right have in America as well from the south and its frightening!
Like the BNP only use religion as an excuse and they are way worse
|
|
|
Post by owner on Mar 11, 2004 18:14:06 GMT
slangking,
Perhaps I don’t share your encyclopaedic knowledge on this. As I’ve shown above, fighting Communism is America’s right as it is a threat to America. I would like to see your evidence of initiation of force on consumers in South America by US companies.
|
|
|
Post by owner on Mar 11, 2004 18:39:31 GMT
haj23scfc, I don’t want to discuss Moore any further. He is not worthy of my attention, but perhaps this link might help show you and his other fans some of his lies. I haven’t looked into this site much so it might not: www.moorelies.com/
|
|
|
Post by haj23scfc on Mar 11, 2004 18:44:07 GMT
my point is that all the points he makes are backed up with evidence and sources from the media etc.
|
|
|
Post by owner on Mar 11, 2004 18:48:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by haj23scfc on Mar 11, 2004 18:56:27 GMT
I'll give one example....
This twat is simply nitpicking and I have emailed him to tell him to read all the sources in more detail.
Page 20: Moore quotes a New Yorker piece on page 4 of his book noting that "Once the FAA permitted overseas flights [after 9-11], the jet [with the Bin Ladens] flew to Europe." (Other reports have added credence to this version of events). But Moore writes on page 20 that "while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" In addition, a September 20, 2001 Boston Globe article notes that the Bin Ladens apparently chartered their own plane - they did not get a "free trip" as Moore suggests.
Moore's point is (if u read the book) that the Bin Ladens were allowed to fly around, not who paid for the plane. This facist twat just looks at one word which incidently is a joke sentence because he uses humour too and rips it to shreds.
You may not agree with his views but is it right that the Bin Laden's are allowed to fly around the USA picking family members up when Osama is the prime suspect?!
|
|
|
Post by owner on Mar 11, 2004 19:12:43 GMT
“is it right that the Bin Laden's are allowed to fly around the USA picking family members up when Osama is the prime suspect?!”<br> No, but I have only the evidence you state from the New Yorker and Moore to back that claim. I think that both authors (twat and Moore – is there a difference?) are nitpicking, probably because they don’t want anyone to discuss the real problem and solution. Concentrating arguments on irrelevances based on hearsay and flimsy evidence, and then mixing in hatred is a great way to avoid more important arguments.
|
|
|
Post by haj23scfc on Mar 11, 2004 19:19:32 GMT
I agree that "air bin laden" is only a minor thing but its something which is worrying and we have to wonder why it was allowed.
Moore in the first part of DWMC? looks at 9/11 and some of it is very interesting even if you don't agree with his opinions. I agree that some of it may be wrong but not every publication is flawless. For example: "the capability to launch WMD in 45 minutes" is a prime example ;D
|
|
|
Post by owner on Mar 11, 2004 20:12:27 GMT
Wondering about something is fine, but letting it dominate your thoughts to the extent of evading reality is a different matter. I don’t believe that I could find convincing evidence to support or refute Moore’s claim, so with no way to arrive at an objective conclusion I choose not to use arguments based on feelings that he should be right because I don’t like Bush or some other irrational feeling. Moore knows that most of his arguments go unchecked by his readers and that they gleefully defend him when no-one can show evidence to the contrary, as if a lack of counter evidence is sufficient proof of his claims. I have no interest in reading the works of a man who operates like this. I guess Moore is at least true to his ideas of diversity and multiculturalism by diversifying the culture of truth with that of lies.
|
|
|
Post by haj23scfc on Mar 11, 2004 20:30:30 GMT
I have looked at quite a lot of the sources he lists from DWMC? and its pretty shocking and worrying!
20% of Americans live below the poverty line The USA has the highest gun murder rate in the world yet they won't impose gun control. Oil companies giving money to Bush so he doesn't sign treaties on the environment. Unneccesary wars Election fixing
Its stuff like this why I agree with Moore and some of his evidence from reputable news agencies just adds to it.
Multi-Culturism is wrong then owner?!
|
|
|
Post by owner on Mar 11, 2004 21:08:53 GMT
Some cultures are better than others: a free society is better than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement. The values of Western civilization are values for all men; they cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. Western civilization is the objectively superior culture; it needs no diversification with inferior cultures.
I find the common criticisms of America to be almost entirely based on gut reaction.
When a country has high amounts of immigration, what type of people are they letting in? Taken from the Statue of Liberty:
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
While this might read like a mockery in these tight border times it must be the case that large amounts of immigrants are poor and it takes time to earn enough money not to be considered poor. So America’s (comparitively) open immigration policy accounts for large amounts of poor. “But there are poor people who have been poor for generations” goes the cry of the altruists. In America people are free to choose their road to happiness; some choose not to earn much. “But what about those who try and fail?” Is it the duty of the successful to pay for the failures? Do the poor have a claim on the rich? If so, then by what right? Does anyone in the world have a claim to a rich American’s wealth? What happens when you’ve destroyed the rich? Who do you loot then? The poverty line in America is far higher than anyone can hope to earn under Statism of any form.
The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and for a good reason. The proper function of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. The state is neither omniscient nor omnipresent so it can't protect you at all times; if a murderer attacks you and you are disarmed (by the state as in the UK) there is little chance of survival. The infringement of the right to self-defence is an infringement on the right to life.
The signing of the Kyoto protocol is immoral and something the UK should never have done, and I hope the US never does. It’s immoral because it restricts your right to produce and therefore to pursue happiness. Oil companies giving money to Bush is not the problem; the problem is that the State has so much power that any company would want to do it. There should be a separation of economy and state and limits on the state’s powers, not a limit to who or how much anyone can donate.
Unnecessary wars – I agree that most of these wars are unnecessary but probably for much different reasons. These wars are in general unnecessary as the US should have retaliated to crush Islamic terrorism when she first experienced it. But the US didn’t, so fights what are still unnecessary wars. The US should deliver the terrorist states with ultimatums with a promise of force greater than any witnessed before if they don’t remove terrorism from their countries.
|
|
|
Post by desman on Mar 11, 2004 22:05:06 GMT
Why do we freely and openly post a thread called Why do people hate the Americans. If I posted a thread called Why do we hate the Arabs then the lefties would be on here faster than greased shit. Why is it ok to be openly racist against the Americans but not criticise anyone else without being branded the dreaded "R" word. The strange thing is the lefties tell us we shouldnt use this language against others because its racist but are only too happy to jump on the band wagon when it comes to despising our allies. I fear our turn will come with this indescriminate bombing and when it does then the real problems will begin. Our idiotic prime minister followed by the equally inept Home secretary has allowed this country to be totally exposed to the vermin that are hell bent on murder and destruction. Blair is a total embarrasment to this country. Its so fucking hypocritical to stand in the US telling them we must get rid of terrorism only to then come home and basucally invite it into the country via the open door. The man makes me sick and also his wife who makes a fortune out of the defence of the vilest criminals in society on the basis of so called human rights. Before you criticise America you should look closer to home and realise what a fucking joke of a government we have here.
|
|
|
Post by slangking on Mar 11, 2004 22:20:48 GMT
There is hope for Americans.. I have this theory that after the fall of the U.S.S.R and China turning towards market economics that they will lose their fear of equality. Maybe Kerry will be the start even though he is by our standards still a right wing cunt, he did go on that march with Jane Fonda.
|
|
|
Post by GlennA on Mar 11, 2004 23:10:02 GMT
Des
I'm a leftie and I posted about how much I like Americans, so your theory has a few holes in it.
Slang
I'm not sure the rich will ever lose their fear of equality but it's a nice thought.
|
|
|
Post by tubes on Mar 11, 2004 23:47:25 GMT
I don't dislike American's on the whole, however there is a lot of stuff I don't like - The whole superior attitude that proclaims them to be the best country in the world, the whole egotistical condescending attitude they have about other countries.
- Their politics, their goverment and their leader also annoy the fuck out of me.
- Their tendency to think that "might makes right", and that they can do what they want outside of international law because no-one can stop them.
- The fact that they say chips instead of crisps, and fries instead of chips.
- The fact that they can't spell properly (color? For fucks sake)
- The fact that they would even dare to insult the worlds best sport by callnig their mutated version of rugby football.
- The whole Janet Jackson thing. Sex and violence is so woven into their culture, their tv, their films,. their advertising, yet when a single breast is uncovered (the nipple is covered, for fucks sake they allow that on MTV during prime time) they clutch onto outdated morals and condemn it. I can't help thinking if it happened in Britain. it would have been "wa hey, tits" and that would be the end of it.
- Many Many More things
I don't have a problem with Americans as such, I've been over twice and enjoyed myself immensly, but there are some aspects of their culture and national attitude that I sometimes dislike.
|
|
|
Post by haj23scfc on Mar 12, 2004 1:01:15 GMT
Des, many would argue Blunkett is far too RIGHT wing, I do for one and if you look at many of his policies then you may agree.
The sad fact is you can't stop terrorism, you can only try to prevent it. Took years to stop the IRA, Spain have never stopped ETA, Israel will never stop Hamas. So what hope have we got in combating a worldwide organisation which has people everywhere "hell bent on causing murder and destruction."?! The only real way to deal with it is to increase homeland security and to arrest actual people who have been found with plans and materials for a terrorist attack with concrete evidence.
As for America owner, going back to the previous topic. I can't see how anyone can defend the right to bear arms in the 21st century in America. The fact that their gun murder rate is so high is surely enough evidence that they do need gun control or they will just keep having Columbines in the same way we had Dunblane, only we reacted to it. This and they are a violent nation just adds to the trouble.
So owner, we shouldnt limit the amount of shit being pumped into the air everyday and make sure big business use money to find greener fuels etc.?!
Also how do you mean by showing terrorist states they have seen nothing before???? There are very few terrorist states as such and I can't actually think of any off hand. Al Qaeda don't have a home state. Most of th 9/11 hijackers were Saudi but I can't see us walking into there when they supply so much oil and are in Bush's pockets! As I said above, it is very difficult to beat terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by Hooky on Mar 12, 2004 7:19:53 GMT
I hate the "National Persona" .. individuals ... well some of them are normal human beings .....
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 12, 2004 7:51:09 GMT
Des, you must explain to me sometime just how hating Americans is racist. As that country is one of the most racially diverse in the world - to desribe them as a race seems to miss the point by a wide margin. I think you are confusing racism with xenophobia. I am pretty left wing and I don't hate Americans. Most of the ones I have met were great people - even if many of them were alarmingly ignorant about that little bit of the planet which is outside America. I can forgive them that, but not the fact that they have an electoral system which was so badly organised that they accidentally elected George Dubya to the job of being the most powerful man in the world!
|
|
|
Post by ks on Mar 12, 2004 7:56:52 GMT
Why do we freely and openly post a thread called Why do people hate the Americans. If I posted a thread called Why do we hate the Arabs then the lefties would be on here faster than greased shit. As many have said, I don't hate Americans, every one I have met has been very friendly. But the American administration I do hate, and many of the self-serving policies it dresses up with "protecting freedom". This is a right of free speech, just as it would be for somebody to hate the British government but not assume that all Brits are tarred with the same brush. Before you criticise America you should look closer to home and realise what a fucking joke of a government we have here. Absolutely, and you'll find I was one of the 1.5 million protesters on Feb 15th last year who wanted to make this exact point. I won't be voting for them next time around. KS.
|
|
|
Post by ks on Mar 12, 2004 8:07:47 GMT
The signing of the Kyoto protocol is immoral and something the UK should never have done, and I hope the US never does. It’s immoral because it restricts your right to produce and therefore to pursue happiness. Oil companies giving money to Bush is not the problem; the problem is that the State has so much power that any company would want to do it. There should be a separation of economy and state and limits on the state’s powers, not a limit to who or how much anyone can donate. This is one of the fundamental tennets of the current American policies that I disagree with most strongly. Ungoverned capitalism rewards only those things which make money. Surely any sentient human can see that there other things in life that do are desirable but not profitable. The world is fast becoming environmentally fucked, but Bush's administration won't agree to restrain the environmental damage because he is completely controlled by corporate pressure groups and their lobbying money - such as those oil companies that are causing this damage. It's short termism of the worst kind. Fuck you all, I'm allright. With freedom comes responsibility, but when the dollar is prized above all then responsibilities take a back seat. When lobbying money dictates policy disproportionately above the common man's vote then you're being undemoctratic to top it off. These factors show how Bush is contravening even the founding American principles. This, in a nutshell, is why I hate Bush, and why many wrongly extend this to Americans as a whole. KS.
|
|
|
Post by owner on Mar 12, 2004 11:37:49 GMT
haj23scfc,
On what premises do you base a high murder rate as a reason for gun control? A feeling of sympathy for victims of gun crime is hardly an argument to deny the right to self-defence. The second amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This right exists as a last defence for the people in a doomsday event. America’s founders knew that the cause of all man’s catastrophes had been the misuse of state power against individuals. The right to bear arms is a last defence against a possible tyranny in the US. Tyranny survives best where government need not fear the retaliation of an armed people.
America’s own history shows this. Disarmament was the tool to subjugate both slaves and free blacks. Without citizenship they had no right to bear arms. A revolt by a few blacks is easy for the government to contain; one by four million armed blacks would be much more difficult. If a few hundred Jewish fighters with a handful of weapons in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month, six million armed Jews would not so easily have been herded off to their deaths. The prospect of tyranny neither grabs headlines nor provides the basis for a best-selling anti-American book as gun crime does, but facing it unprepared is a mistake free people get to make once.
The fundamental goal of environmentalists is not clean air and clean water; rather it is the demolition of industrial civilization. Their goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion. The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism is the enemy of man, the enemy of human life. Intrusion is necessary for human survival. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. Intrusion improves the environment, if by "environment" one means the surroundings of man - the external material conditions of human life. Intrusion is a requirement of human nature. But in the environmentalists' paean to "Nature," human nature is omitted. For the environmentalists, the "natural" world is a world without man. Man has no legitimate needs, but trees, ponds and bacteria somehow do. Never mind that the climate changes all the time and always will, it is hardly a reason to return to the golden age of horse-drawn buggies, outhouses, and the use of oxen in agriculture.
“Also how do you mean by showing terrorist states they have seen nothing before?” Well, despite not entirely understanding this I’ll attempt an answer to it. By “force greater than any witnessed before” - which is what I actually wrote - I mean a force that no-one in the world has witnessed, a full and total commitment to the destruction of terrorist states with no limits on the weapons used. Islamic terrorism exists only by the sanction and support – finance, arms, intelligence, and most importantly a moral basis (even if it is a false morality) – from Islamic states. If our political, intellectual and military leaders would unleash even one-tenth the moral righteousness and determination displayed by these terrorists fighting in the name of Allah, we would all enjoy a period of unprecedented safety and comfort in our free countries. These states include but are not limited to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria (and formerly Afghanistan and Iraq). Declaring war on terrorism and not states that sponsor terrorism is the equivalent of declaring war on Nazism and not Germany, or Kamikazism and not Japan during WW2. Whether these states have important oil reserves that Bush doesn’t want to jeopardise is a gross evasion (on Bush’s part as well) of the fact that Western life cannot coexist with these states since their express intention is to destroy us. Incidentally the oil in the Middle East properly belongs to the British, American, and French companies that the Islamic states seized it from. The West has a right to protect its property in the Middle East as it does anywhere else.
KS,
“he [Bush] is completely controlled by corporate pressure groups and their lobbying money”<br> Take a look at what the corporations actually want. They want the right to be free to follow any course of life they choose without infringing the rights of others. This includes producing and consuming in large volumes. By what right does the state limit the amount anyone can produce or consume? Some groups want special favours and subsidies from the government. By what right does the government seize the wealth of one individual to give to another as a favour or subsidy? Advocates of campaign finance reform need to understand that it’s the state’s powers that need reducing not the individual’s rights.
|
|
|
Post by 339187 on Mar 12, 2004 13:55:42 GMT
Maybe Kerry will be the start even though he is by our standards still a right wing cunt... shock horror! Your standards leave much to be desired, then Kerry is a tax-and-spend, social-engineering ultraliberal of the worst stripe! He wants to take more of my income and fritter it away on ill-conceived schemes to make the country/world a better place. I'd rather waste my money myself, and am perfectly capable of making my own poor decisions thank you very much (That said, I might yet vote for the left-wing twat ; we'll see which numpty candidate pisses me off more between now and November. Maybe neither of them; been there, done that in the past). BTW this is still prime Boring Bin fodder
|
|
|
Post by Not_Nick_H on Mar 12, 2004 14:27:46 GMT
339187 - are you an ex-pat in the U.S. or "born in the USA"? Just bein' nosey. And where-a-bouts? Bein' nosey again.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Mar 12, 2004 14:37:55 GMT
Amongst the many strange propositions of rower was this one .... "By what right does the state limit the amount anyone can produce or consume?"
The answer surely is......By the right of being elected to do so by a population aware that the world's resources are finite.
|
|
|
Post by 339187 on Mar 12, 2004 14:58:40 GMT
Cheers N_N_H Born here (for my sins). New England (Connecticut). Close enough to Kerry/Kennedy country to know what I'm on about Gets more and more boring, this
|
|
|
Post by Not_Nick_H on Mar 12, 2004 15:10:15 GMT
Is that where everyone sounds like Mayor Quimby? "Iiich Bin Ein Springfield-er" Forgive the next question if you've heard it before - Why in the hell is a born and bred American following a less-than high profile Bristish football team? That should consign this to the boring bin now...
|
|