| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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.
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?
>
> Now, again, the thread gets hijacked.
Looking down below at completely unrelated material below...ummmm, yeah.
>
> 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.
The Soviet Union wasn't a tyranny?
The allies would have won without the material support of America,
regardless of active participation? Not to belittle the tremendous efforts
of the people of Britain, the Soviet Union, and others, but it would hardly
have been a given without that aid.
>
> 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.
Should I mention France? 1759? Indians? Subservience to royalty? That
you got there by a much longer road? That conditions were not necessarily
the same in Canada wherein the population looked to the crown for help in
keeping what they very recently stole from the French; as opposed to those
in the states, where they did not feel so beholden?
They were different paths for different people - I'm not going to fault that
the path of Canada was wrong for itself, but I will dispute the insinuation
that the path that the states took was wrong (and it was British and by
implication Canada-as-a-loyal-follower-of-the-crown that occupied us and
shot us up).
>
> Eventually the tyrants will fall--people, societies, civilizations will grow
> up--it's the human mind and the human mind will not be denied.
They have been saying that for centuries. Wish they were right.
>
> 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.
History is full of regressive dark ages.
>
> 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.
You may wish to qualify what constitutes a helping hand a bit further (see
Helping Hand extended by George the Elder to Saddam prior to the Invasion of
Kuwait).
>
> 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.
I don't know - as much as I thought Scott was pulling his usual tricks, I'm
not sure that your message won't turn out to be the greater sidetracker
(though at least with good intentions).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: namecalling
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
