| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > > Great. Glad to hear it. I'm not the only person who thinks you lot (and a
> > > number of other ingrates out there in the rest of the world too, for that
> > > matter) should be left to fend for yourselves ...
> >
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ingrate gives "an ungrateful
> > person", or "a person who shows no gratitude"... none of the meanings it
> > lists have any negative connotation beyond that.
> >
> > Ya, that's namecalling all right. (1) But of course, words like "airhead",
> > "poodle", "lapdog", "cowboy" et. al. are not.
> >
> > 1 - sarcasm alert
> >
> > ++Lar
>
> Well spotted on the hypocrisy - he's just grinding his usual axe. And I
> wish to note that I have great respect for the way Frank expresses his
> opinions (we could all learn a lesson by emulating him). But, ummmmm,
> errrrr, I'd agree with most of the actual name-calling you note above. :-O
>
> Airhead and Blairhead (TM). I gotta learn the way to get the actual symbol
> to come up.
>
> -->Bruce<--
So we're going on our merry way of having a pretty good debate about world
issues, politics, and the threat of war--I was pretty content to sit back
after I started this thread, and read all the well written replies and
appreciating the differing POV's.
Now, again, the thread gets hijacked.
Eh, whatrya gonna do?
Ingrates--a term that could be used.
Another idea, though, is "Thanks for coming to the party (albeit *very* late
and only because you were attacked yourselves, so don't act like it was all
'For the good of the world'--if Japan hadn't done the Pearl Harbour thing,
the xenophobic tendancies of the American people would probably have
prevailed against a president that wanted to get into the war for all the
right reasons, but that's another story) and helping with the Allies--it's
not as if the *Americans* won the war--the Allies did. It was a harsh war
and it would have taken far longer for the Allies to win had the Americans
not entered it, but, eventually, the Allies would have won and I'll tell you
why-- 'cause there are people who believe *fundamentally* that tyranny is a
bad thing, and that fighting against that line, in whatever means necessary,
is the right and Just thing to do.
And that's the bottom line. England was a wee bit of a Tyrant back before
1776, and the Americans decided to revolt against that. I may once again
point out that today, that wonderful little country to the north also enjoys
the same rights and freedoms as the Americans without *one* shot being fired.
Eventually the tyrants will fall--people, societies, civilizations will grow
up--it's the human mind and the human mind will not be denied.
So sure, pull the troops out of the rest of the world and back behind your
borders America--in the 21st century you will come to know that real power
doesn't lie in arms and tanks and the like and as civilized society
progresses, these armaments will become less and less relevant. I believe
it--for history has shown this to be true. It's a little thing called
evolution--we don't regress, we progress.
I reiterate: Extend a helping hand to your neighbour and not the bad end of
a gun, and mayhaps you will see a different response from said neighbour.
But this is all high falut'n talk from a dreamer.
I just wanted to say that it was a good discussion, at least for a while.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: namecalling
|
| (...) Very true. (...) *Ahem* Without American manpower, yes; without American Lend-lease, Britain would have been forced to truce eventually. And that would mean more Axis soldiers to the Eastern Front, which in turn would mean perhaps the Soviets (...) (22 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Back on track... (was Re: namecalling
|
| (...) Don't worry, Dave, it's not hijacked. It's just been temporarily diverted but is back on track now. (...) He's been caught out, we can move on. Everyone just needs to ignore all the responses you know we're going to get, trying to prove black (...) (22 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: namecalling
|
| (...) Don't you think this message should be in reply to Scott, or perhaps Duq, or Larry? Or was my message just a convenient jumping off point? (...) Looking down below at completely unrelated material below...ummmm, yeah. (...) The Soviet Union (...) (22 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | 1776 and all that [was Re: namecalling]
|
| (...) I think you mean Britain. (...) My American History is not great, but I'm pretty sure only a minority of the American-Settlers thought that *Britain* was a Tyrant and so chose to “revolt”. Further, their WoI would not have taken the path it (...) (22 years ago, 3-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: namecalling
|
| (...) Well spotted on the hypocrisy - he's just grinding his usual axe. And I wish to note that I have great respect for the way Frank expresses his opinions (we could all learn a lesson by emulating him). But, ummmmm, errrrr, I'd agree with most of (...) (22 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
69 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
