RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?"

RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

RealityLicks -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 9:51:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic ...I'm trying to help condition the Obama supporters to not take the bait. ... and they need your help why? quote: Politics is a dirty game, and he has set the bar for himself very high. Perhaps. I prefer to think he has set it high for your country's electorate. My doubts are around them, not him. It'll be interesting to see how things turn out.

Maitreange -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 9:59:23 AM)
quote: Your financial contributions after WWII were just a drop in the bucket compared to the United States…Same with men and equipment We have talked about repaying war debt before… 60 damn years of you paying when you felt like it… and still owe billions from WWI…stop getting into wars you can’t afford and expect us to grow money on trees to bail you out. You act as if we owe you that money for services rendered… you did not save us from Germany…we saved you. OH this is rich as well….such language shame shame quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Wonderful rebuttal arguments LadyEllen I especially like this one…. We can get along quite nicely by ourselves thanks - we've long experience of getting embroiled in foreign wars where we lose lots of dead and injured for no significant benefit - so we hardly need you to help out on that count. This is exactly why I want our country to be isolationists...just because your country as been foolish does not mean mine must continue to be also. Your financial contributions after WWII were just a drop in the bucket compared to the United States…Same with men and equipment We have talked about repaying war debt before… 60 damn years of you paying when you felt like it… and still owe billions from WWI…stop getting into wars you can’t afford and expect us to grow money on trees to bail you out. You act as if we owe you that money for services rendered… you did not save us from Germany…we saved you. OH this is rich as well….such language shame shame For fuck's sake, this bankrupted the Empire - you do know about that yes? 1/5 of the world...... Britain a world power...... oh never mind. Anyway - suffice to say most of the world map used to be a light red colour, but the expense of paying to rebuild Europe and rebuild ourselves was just to much to keep the old place going. World power…yes you were once the world’s power…when you weren’t getting your ass kicked by your former colonies. But besides that your noble ancestors would be ashamed of you and what you have let their sacrifices come to. This is the best of all…….. You know, I really wouldnt mind it so much, if you were making your points based on the facts You cannot show me one fact that I have miss-represented…calling me names and using bad language is beneath you I think and will not change history. Hello from France, first time on this forum, interesting chat... You can't be serious ! Don't you understand than each time US did take part in WW2 it was in their own interest (and I don't blame them for that). Sending american soldier to die on french coast (rip) was no pure philanthropia, sorry to wake you up from your dreams of soul's greatness of american people (once again I do like the usa and american people). If tomorrow your country is being severely attacked you can be sure that western european countries will stand at your side, isolationism is not even an option anymore. It would have been worse for the US, on the long term, to let Nazis invade France and England, you would have had to deal with them sooner or later, preferably not on your land. You talk about the cost of the rebuilding of Europe, but you shouldn't forget that at the time the condition for european countries to benefit this help was that they had to open completely their economies to US market! US just gained great control over the world's economy. And last but not least they were affraied that western Europe would grow into communism, because there is no isolationist policy than can stop the flow of political movements. (sorry if my message is not so understandable! tell me so if its the case)

LadyEllen -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 10:18:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub No I don't...please point it out to me.... believe me I am never too proud to apologize if wrong. And I am to do so how? When you edited your crass and insulting comments so readily? I will accept that you felt the need to edit as an acknowledgment of the unprovoked insult given, and allow others to infer what they will from those edits and the fact that I dont go round "lashing out" as you mistakenly put it, against people and their posts as a habit, and further to infer what they will regarding your alleged lack of pride to make such, the absence of any sort of apology. E

kdsub -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 10:29:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maitreange Hello from France, first time on this forum, interesting chat... You can't be serious ! Don't you understand than each time US did take part in WW2 it was in their own interest (and I don't blame them for that). Sending american soldier to die on french coast (rip) was no pure philanthropia, sorry to wake you up from your dreams of soul's greatness of american people (once again I do like the usa and american people). If tomorrow your country is being severely attacked you can be sure that western european countries will stand at your side, isolationism is not even an option anymore. It would have been worse for the US, on the long term, to let Nazis invade France and England, you would have had to deal with them sooner or later, preferably not on your land. You talk about the cost of the rebuilding of Europe, but you shouldn't forget that at the time the condition for european countries to benefit this help was that they had to open completely their economies to US market! US just gained great control over the world's economy. And last but not least they were affraied that western Europe would grow into communism, because there is no isolationist policy than can stop the flow of political movements. (sorry if my message is not so understandable! tell me so if its the case) Hello and welcome France and Great Briton should never have let a dictator like Hitler become so powerful. But no you appeased in your usual French manner until it was too late. There were agreements made by Germany at the end of WWI that prohibited Germany from rearming… You did not hold them to it… WWII was in large part caused by your failings to hold them to this agreement. Wouldn’t you agree that US troops dieing on French soil for the French people was just a little more than …well as you put it “ Philanthropy” ..personally I do think it was the greatness of the American people that saved you as well. The rebuilding of Europe was purely the generosity of the American people. Russia was not the great enemy right at the end of the war. I think France has a great history but of late your misguided diplomacy has not served your citizens well… But that is of course you and your people’s choice. I have no desire to interfere in your business.

kittinSol -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 10:32:30 AM)
A couple of people on this thread are hugely cynical about other countries whilst trumpetting their want for universal acknowledgement by the very countries they keep on deriding. Un peu de soutien moral est toujours bienvenu :-) .

kdsub -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 10:36:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub No I don't...please point it out to me.... believe me I am never too proud to apologize if wrong. And I am to do so how? When you edited your crass and insulting comments so readily? I will accept that you felt the need to edit as an acknowledgment of the unprovoked insult given, and allow others to infer what they will from those edits and the fact that I dont go round "lashing out" as you mistakenly put it, against people and their posts as a habit, and further to infer what they will regarding your alleged lack of pride to make such, the absence of any sort of apology. E What edit... you keep accusing me but do not point it out. There are times on the edits in relation to your posts…point it out or have a bit of tea and zip that stiff upper lip your so proud of.

kittinSol -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 10:51:15 AM)
You know, kdsub, history is a contentious subject at the best of times, because there are always more than one way to interpret facts, as they are presented to us in documents. For example, I could argue that America intervened at the eleventh hour in Europe because it was safe for them to do so - I could argue that Britain as a nation acted heroically and survived the Blitz. I could argue that France had a crooked government (Petain was condemned to death for his actions during the war) and that many French men and women actively took arms, and died, and were tortured, and sent to the camps, and fought the invaders (they were called 'Resistants', in case you didn't know). You could argue back ad nauseam and we could exchange snipes for hours on end. In my eyes as well as many others', your point of view is obstructed by your obvious historical bias. Your freedom to believe what you want doesn't make your beliefs true, kd.

kdsub -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 11:55:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol You know, kdsub, history is a contentious subject at the best of times, because there are always more than one way to interpret facts, as they are presented to us in documents. For example, I could argue that America intervened at the eleventh hour in Europe because it was safe for them to do so - I could argue that Britain as a nation acted heroically and survived the Blitz. I could argue that France had a crooked government (Petain was condemned to death for his actions during the war) and that many French men and women actively took arms, and died, and were tortured, and sent to the camps, and fought the invaders (they were called 'Resistants', in case you didn't know). You could argue back ad nauseam and we could exchange snipes for hours on end. In my eyes as well as many others', your point of view is obstructed by your obvious historical bias. Your freedom to believe what you want doesn't make your beliefs true, kd. Nothing to interpret…facts are facts…now as to whether they are valid facts is another matter. Please tell the families of the hundreds of thousands of American war dead how you think we entered the war because it was safe to do so. I could be wrong but I believe US arm forces dead exceeded the British and the French in WWII No need to argue the Brits courage in the face of the blitz...when did I ever say anything about that. I have no more of a bias then you do… it is just a different view that you don’t agree with…. That is your choice and it is for others to decide if either view is worth consideration. You have your right to state your views and so do I without being subjected to infantile insults.

Maitreange -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 12:02:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Hello and welcome France and Great Briton should never have let a dictator like Hitler become so powerful. But no you appeased in your usual French manner until it was too late. There were agreements made by Germany at the end of WWI that prohibited Germany from rearming… You did not hold them to it… WWII was in large part caused by your failings to hold them to this agreement. Wouldn’t you agree that US troops dieing on French soil for the French people was just a little more than …well as you put it “ Philanthropy” ..personally I do think it was the greatness of the American people that saved you as well. The rebuilding of Europe was purely the generosity of the American people. Russia was not the great enemy right at the end of the war. I think France has a great history but of late your misguided diplomacy has not served your citizens well… But that is of course you and your people’s choice. I have no desire to interfere in your business. I am not comparing france and the US, and I am not saying (neither thinking) that France is beyond reproach. I am just pointing out the fact that it was clearly in US interest to do what they did (the Normandy landings and then the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe). And about Russia, communism didn't wait the cold-war to exist. (However cold-war started actually right at the end of the WWII in the mid 40s...). History facts play against your ideal, however I don't doubt some american soldiers were actually happy to help people (I will be fair and not talk about french women raped by american soldiers during the liberation...). And french people somehow do feel grateful for that. But you cannot say that if US hadn't do anything everything would have been better for them. This is just untrue. In a way you admit that US had to come in France and help rebuild for their interest when you don't refute my arguments and rather argue that France was partly responsible for what happened (which is not completely wrong...) :p . Kittinsol: salut chere compatriote [:)]

Maitreange -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 12:06:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I could be wrong but I believe US arm forces dead exceeded the British and the French in WWII Just so that you know: french deads: 610 000 UK deads: 400 000 US: 300 000. But that is not the point...

popeye1250 -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 12:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Ah, but you were talking about terrorists. Well, I can tell you that any of the present candidates are a good choice if your aim is to regain the respect the United States has lost over the course of the past eight years. I can also assure you, as an outsider, that Barrack Obama is looked upon with hope by many other countries. Let's face it: the situation brought upon you by the clown Bush can only be improved. A belligerent foreign policy hasn't brought much else to America than increased violence and suspicion (which is why desperate people are blowing themselves up to make a point). So, Obama or any other will be just the ticket... at first. The legacy is immensely cumbersome though, wouldn't you say? Nobody will have the time, in four years, to correct the huge mistakes that were made in the past two presidencies. The reason that Obama is "looked upon with hope" by other countries is because they think he'll be easy to get foreign aid out of or that he'll somehow "solve their problems." I'm also an Isolationist to a certain extent. I don't believe in any "foreign aid" programs except for something like that tsunami relief or such but not any type of institutionalised, continuing, money programs. People have no idea of the theft and corruption that happens with that kind of stuff. Then we have presidents like Clinton bemoaning the fact that Ruwandans were hacking each other up with machetes or that people were killing each other in Bosnia or Kosovo. He used words like "genocide" and,...I loved this one,..."ethnic cleansing." lol Only thing was the people in "the dorm" at the W.H. couldn't figure out which ethnic group was which! And they were referred to as "the dorm" because they were all young kids with "degrees!" They must have majored in "political science" instead of history or geography! lol What I don't understand is why it's my fault as an American Citizen that some people in Africa want to hack each other up or shoot and bomb each other in Kosovo or Bosnia? Sorry but I won't take responsibility for the actions of other people 7,000 miles away in a "country" I've never even heard of until some reporter thought they'd "change the world." And in the case of Bosnia and Kosovo, dumbo Clinton and "the dorm" tried to placate the American Taxpayers by saying it was a "Nato Operation". Only there was a glaring hole in their lie, no "NATO" country was attacked! And now Bush can't get "NATO" countries to put enough Troops into Afganistan! When you're the largest member of any organisation all the other members just "expect" you to "contribute" the most. This is why we need to dissolve "NATO", it just isn't to our benefit to belong to an org. like that! I still can't figure out why on earth Clinton would want to get us involved in Bosnia or Kosovo. And, we still have approximately 400,000 "refugees" from those countries in the U.S. When will they be repatriated under the Geneva Conventions? Everyone says we don't follow the Geneva Conventions so let's follow them! And, I noticed that Barak is using the word "genocide" in his speeches. Gee! I wonder what he means by that? We don't have any "genocides" in the U.S. that I'm aware of. I'm getting the impression that Obama thinks he's going to be "running his own show" if he gets into the W.H. instead of looking out for the interests of the American People. We don't elect presidents to be worried about the problems of foreign countries. Anyone who thinks like that should probably be thinking about getting a job with the Intl Red Cross not the U.S. govt. Obama sounds like "Bush 2". Only instead of Iraq we'll be involved in African countries if he gets his way. This is why it's important the Americans contact their congressmen and senators when a president tries to do something that they don't like. How about our govt. getting "involved" in the U.S. for a change? On edit; After Bosnia and Kosovo Clinton got together with the E.U. and they agreed that the E.U. should have a 60,000 man "Rapid Reaction Force" on "standby" for such situations. How's that comming along or was that just a bunch of empty rhetoric? Are they in place yet? It's been a few years now.

LadyEllen -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 12:47:31 PM)
Hi Popeye I have to say I have similar ideas about the way we give money out to countries who griped and groaned that they wanted independence from us - seems they dont understand that independence means theyre on their own. However at the same time I recognise that there is very little of these monies which is actually given freely, and that very few benefit from it - on both sides of the cheque book. Its we little people over here who get to fund, back or guarantee the monies and its the little people over there who rarely see a penny of it. Given the sorry state of affairs throughout the whole sphere of "donations" by whatever name they are described, I would suggest that were they stopped tomorrow then those for whom we might imagine the monies are being sent, would not be able to tell any difference. In my view, they are hang overs from the Cold War, when it was useful to buy allies and buy off enemies, and now redundant. I would like to see the whole thing reorganised such that those who need mosquito nets, anti-malarials, school books and other things alike, get them -without any regard whatsoever for new tanks, planes and limousines provided for the benefit of the crooks who run many of these countries, and with similar disregard for the benefit of the crooks running such schemes over here. And as for NATO - I think youre exactly right. Many members are not pulling their weight as they might, and indeed whenever NATO is called on, it seems to always fall to the same usual suspects to provide, with the same usual suspects showing great reluctance to get involved. It needs to be reorganised - if indeed it is to be maintained at all - and the only source of motivating that reorganisation and the reinvigoration required as I can see would be if the US pulled out of the European side of it - perhaps taking Canada along to form a separate but cooperative North American side. This would force other European members to step up to the mark, and I see no other means to accomplish that. As for Obama and all this - I really dont think you or we will see any change in policy in these regards from him. But I still think he's your best candidate for the moment - the US, its people, the west and indeed the whole world needs someone with his charisma and ability to inspire to get us through the next few years - like it or not who your president is has worldwide implications, and it has to be better to have someone with some vision such as he seems to demonstrate. If only he can ride the wave of fallout from Bush. E

kdsub -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 12:50:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maitreange quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I could be wrong but I believe US arm forces dead exceeded the British and the French in WWII Just so that you know: french deads: 610 000 UK deads: 400 000 US: 300 000. But that is not the point... Nope...you are wrong again... I said armed forces deaths.... check the numbers in THIS link...and yes that is my point

kdsub -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 1:05:41 PM)
Popeye With our limited choices for President do you see Clinton or McClain any less likely then Obama to interfere on the international scene? Butch

Maitreange -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 1:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: Maitreange quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I could be wrong but I believe US arm forces dead exceeded the British and the French in WWII Just so that you know: french deads: 610 000 UK deads: 400 000 US: 300 000. But that is not the point... Nope...you are wrong again... I said armed forces deaths.... check the numbers in THIS link...and yes that is my point My mistakes! I thought french resistants would be taken into acount. (they were the only french one fighting while the government of Petain was collaborating with Nazis...I think these numbers are meaningless in the french case if you don't count civil loss...because Degaulle's resistants were not a recognized military force, however withouth them US wouldn't have beaten germans out of France). But this is really not the point for what you told before (that US had better not take part in it, for their sake...). Somehow you still get to avoid real arguments... Why am I wrong "again", where was I wrong before? :-/

RealityLicks -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 1:14:35 PM)
Without wishing to hijack the thread, cutting aid is all very well as long as the economic strictures which keep certain countries poor are repealed too. Ghana would not need aid if it could sell chocolate in the west but import laws mean it can only sell cocoa. They are prevented from adding value to their products by western protectionism, then called "backward" when their labour profits massive corporations like Nestle. Asian countries have frequently not had the same restraints of trade applied to them. Often they have been aided in very real terms - Japanese industry benefited from transistor technology gifted freely by the US after the war and soon Sony radios sat on every mantle in the west. They could then spread their success to other sectors of their own and neighbouring Asian economies. It's not freedom or independence that the African countries have been granted; its a very carefully structured DEpendence. Now watch the aid propaganda pay off as Angola and Nigeria already send more oil to the US than Saudi.

LadyEllen -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 1:25:10 PM)
Very true RL (good save!) on the trade restrictions front. Again these benefit a few who have enough already, at the expense of many who could make something of their lives. We need to take steps to make sure we (and by that I mean we the people, not the City) are protected from outsourcing and insourcing, but given a level playing field I would see no reason why we shouldnt be able to buy African finished products direct from Africans. I had an idea the other day on this very subject - what if we could get the supermarkets to dispense with metal baskets, and instead use woven baskets from Africa? We'd need a bit of a design job - so that they'd stack and so on, but I was thinking - all that expensive steel saved, renewable resources used instead, cheap to make and buy and lots of income for Africans. E

TheHeretic -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 1:27:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks ... and they need your help why? LOL. Between Obama and his goal are two of the most powerful and effective political machines going (Clinton's and the GOP's). His supporters can use all the help they can get. Why me? Because I'm exactly the sort of person they need to convince of substance if they want to win. I could wind up voting for him in November. I reserve the right to push a few buttons to see what happens on my way to that decision.

Maitreange -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 1:29:38 PM)
Is there something in the democrates's program about the right to own arms or is it still a taboo? (I really wonder, there is not irony here)

kdsub -> RE: Can Barak "get ghetto?" (2/18/2008 1:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Maitreange My mistakes! I thought french resistants would be taken into acount. (they were the only french one fighting while the government of Petain was collaborating with Nazis...I think these numbers are meaningless in the french case if you don't count civil loss...because Degaulle's resistants were not a recognized military force, however withouth them US wouldn't have beaten germans out of France). But this is really not the point for what you told before (that US had better not take part in it, for their sake...). Somehow you still get to avoid real arguments... Why am I wrong "again", where was I wrong before? :-/ I'm just glad that only a small part of the war was fought on American soil...I'm not really sure about why you think it was in our interests to join the European battle… but it made little difference after Pearl Harbor. We made the choice to declare war on Germany to aid you…we could have just as easily fought our war with Japan…with a lot less deaths. In the end if we were just worried about the future attack of Germany we could have waited until you and your allies beat him down some…even if you lost… then jumped in and still loss less men… But then of course you would have suffered many more casualties both civilian and military.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125