Originally posted by Master Crimzon
... you people still do rodeos?
It's my first rodeo my gf took me. We wanted to see Toby Keith in concert. Really though it's the best concert i've ever been to. The man has an amazing voice, amazing band, and he actually loves being out there instead of pretending. Amazing experience.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I think you can guess my overall opinion of country music, but I'm glad you had a good time.
I don't generally like country music but I'm from Texas so I've grown accustomed to it. There are VERY few artists I would listen to, probably less than 10 but Toby Keith is my favorite. Plus it's nice to have a singer not push a liberal agenda because he's very conservative and I love his patriotism. My problem is less with liberalism and more with all of these hollywood actors and singers trying to push their agendas on people.
Well, I do admit it's refreshing to hear a celebrity who isn't a left-winger (despite my political standings); I get a bit tired of unintelligent actors repeating the shit they hear from politicians just because it 'sounds right'. Still, I like some people who pursue a liberal agenda with intelligence, like Michael Moore and South Park's creators, though South Park is really more of a libertarian show than a typically liberal one.
Still, I think that Keith's songs are blindly patriotic, simple-minded, and over all not my taste.
Blindly patriotic? I don't think so. He doesn't repeat anything he hears either. The guy visits Iraq and the troops more than any other "hollywood" person out there. I think his patriotism is well founded.
I think Michael Moore is very extreme leftist. Hell, he's a self hating America and the only time he doesn't sound like a complete moron is when he's doing less talking and making a movie.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Blindly patriotic? I don't think so. He doesn't repeat anything he hears either. The guy visits Iraq and the troops more than any other "hollywood" person out there. I think his patriotism is well founded.
I think 'raising the troops' morale' is an overrated goal. I understand that they have feelings of guilt and lack of faith, but for good reason- restoring these things based upon false hope and gung-ho patriotism is wrong, IMO. Blind faith is a very, very bad thing.
His song 'Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue' is the very definition of excess patriotism. In the song, he doesn't glorify his father for following in his ideals and attempting to make the world a better place- rather, he glorifies his father for being a flag-waving nationalist/'patriot', no matter what, which I feel is wrong. A country that is doing an injustice does not deserve support, even if you were born in that country. I know troops died in order to preserve our safety, but I don't feel it is necessary. Using our immediate view of justice based on our place as being some sort of good guys within the universal scheme goes against my ideology; we are not the good guys and any military action we do should not be taken as righteous and inherently just.
Sexy, I think true patriotism is to constantly pursue your personal ideology in order to make your country a better place, rather than conforming to everything it does based on 'loyalty'. When Moore or I say that Israel and America are partly to blame for supplying terrorists with motivation and feelings of hatred, we are not being 'self-hating'; rather, we analyze the injustices within our system and attempt to replace them in order to create a better and more progressive society.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I think Michael Moore is very extreme leftist. Hell, he's a self hating America and the only time he doesn't sound like a complete moron is when he's doing less talking and making a movie.
... at least he uses facts when making his movies and talking politics.
Yeah, Nemesis, I don't know if he's a very nice guy, but I find to be an occasionally inspirational and always thought-provoking political activist.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I think 'raising the troops' morale' is an overrated goal. I understand that they have feelings of guilt and lack of faith, but for good reason- restoring these things based upon false hope and gung-ho patriotism is wrong, IMO. Blind faith is a very, very bad thing.His song 'Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue' is the very definition of excess patriotism. In the song, he doesn't glorify his father for following in his ideals and attempting to make the world a better place- rather, he glorifies his father for being a flag-waving nationalist/'patriot', no matter what, which I feel is wrong. A country that is doing an injustice does not deserve support, even if you were born in that country. I know troops died in order to preserve our safety, but I don't feel it is necessary. Using our immediate view of justice based on our place as being some sort of good guys within the universal scheme goes against my ideology; we are not the good guys and any military action we do should not be taken as righteous and inherently just.
... at least he uses facts when making his movies and talking politics.
Yeah, Nemesis, I don't know if he's a very nice guy, but I find to be an occasionally inspirational and always thought-provoking political activist.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You know they were liberals because... why?You know that they walked out because of the content of the song... how?
That was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Ever. Srsly.
Um.. Because they were wearing Obama and "we can change" shirts. I was waiting for the predictably arrogant assertion.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Um.. Because they were wearing Obama and "we can change" shirts. I was waiting for the predictably arrogant assertion.
And they didn't leave because their dog got ran over? Their parent/s had a stroke? They had to piss? Don't make assumptions about peoples' motives if you can't substantiate them.
I'm gonna go to school now, so if I just made a fool out of myself I'll deal with it this afternoon.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
And they didn't leave because their dog got ran over? Their parent/s had a stroke? They had to piss? Don't make assumptions about peoples' motives if you can't substantiate them.
I'm gonna go to school now, so if I just made a fool out of myself I'll deal with it this afternoon.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I don't agree with your position. You're not a soldier so you can't make that assessment.
I'm really sorry for the soldiers, but I don't think their morale should be raised upon an ideal I find to be unjust and nationalistic. I think they have good intentions, but I think their feelings of fledgling patriotism and simple-minded sense of justice is being manipulated by the government to further its own ends, which are far from pure.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I for one absolutely LOVE that song and he closed the concert with that song, which got the most applause. I saw some liberals walk out and laughed. And doing an injustice that's according to you. You're the same guy who blamed Israel for the hamas attacks. I don't feel that we're always the good guys but I definitely feel that while the war in Iraq and in the middle east could have been handled a LOT better, we had good intentions.
The Nazis had good intentions, too. I'm sure the people responsible for the Iraq War and the Gaza conflict all had very good intentions- they saw themselves as protecting their countries from oppressive terrorist interests.
I think the execution, however, is very poor, the attempted democratization of Iraq despite the people's lack of will to be a stunningly hypocritical and anti-democratic thing to do, the degeneration to terrorist standards of violence and murder of innocents unnecessary and only serving to breed more hatred for our cause and validating the terrorist's motivations and increasing their support. Do you want proof? The Palestinian's faith in Hamas' militant ways skyrocketed after the war. Why? We dealt with it in an excessive manner and refused to combine a more restrained military approach with diplomatic ways, which is the only way to break out of the cycle of hatred.
The end is noble, I'm sure, but the means used to achieve the hypothetical end are simply evil and unjust.
War cannot be used as means of solving our problems. It could be used as a supplement and an assistance, so long as we have a proven cause (likely self-defense) and constantly act with restraint and with moralistic standards, but never the entire deal.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
He also twists things aruond. He doesn't understand politics at all.
Well, that's your opinion.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Yea, he's not inspirational at all. He's a self hating America who bends facts to further his own agenda. Just imagine a hollywood actor who gets to direct his own movie.
I find him inspirational because I agree with his political standings; you don't because you don't agree with his political standings. The situation is reversed when it comes to Keith.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I'm really sorry for the soldiers, but I don't think their morale should be raised upon an ideal I find to be unjust and nationalistic. I think they have good intentions, but I think their feelings of fledgling patriotism and simple-minded sense of justice is being manipulated by the government to further its own ends, which are far from pure.
The Nazis had good intentions, too. I'm sure the people responsible for the Iraq War and the Gaza conflict all had very good intentions- they saw themselves as protecting their countries from oppressive terrorist interests.
I think the execution, however, is very poor, the attempted democratization of Iraq despite the people's lack of will to be a stunningly hypocritical and anti-democratic thing to do, the degeneration to terrorist standards of violence and murder of innocents unnecessary and only serving to breed more hatred for our cause and validating the terrorist's motivations and increasing their support. Do you want proof? The Palestinian's faith in Hamas' militant ways skyrocketed after the war. Why? We dealt with it in an excessive manner and refused to combine a more restrained military approach with diplomatic ways, which is the only way to break out of the cycle of hatred.
The end is noble, I'm sure, but the means used to achieve the hypothetical end are simply evil and unjust.
I find him inspirational because I agree with his political standings; you don't because you don't agree with his political standings. The situation is reversed when it comes to Keith.
That's fine but I never claimed Toby Keith understood politics nor did he claim to. Moore doesn't understand politics, which is why his extreme leftist bullshit is on the level of hollywood actors.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Right, YOU find unjust and nationalistic. They are doing their job and dying for what they believe in. That's more than you or I could say.
That's correct. I don't like to be told that I'm lowering the troop's moral with my liberal standpoint; I don't believe in the cause they are fighting for, so I don't think they should be 'inspired'. All a matter of personal opinion.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Except we're back to universal or "mostly accepted" standards, and what the nazis did was mass genocide, and was seen as such by the entire world. This is completely different in regards to the Gaza conflict and the war in the middle east.
I am by no means saying that we are comparable to the Nazis for our actions. However, we both have standards that we, according to our cultural standards, perceive as noble- the democratization of the world in our case, and a utopia ruled by the all-powerful race in the Nazi's case. They viewed themselves as having a good cause, too.
The world did not react because of the holocaust. It reacted because the Nazi's military power and quest for colonizations was threatening their national freedom and interests, and thus they reacted in self-defense in order to prevent the 'Nazi threat' from taking over the world.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
The terrorists existed before we tried to democratize Iraq, sorry to tell you. Don't start blaming the idea of terrorism on America because that would be already pushing it. What you offered was not proof either. The hatred and terrorist acts existed before we went into the middle east, and they'll exist when we leave. You're just looking to blame someone other than the actual culprit.
The fact that terrorists are ultimately the ones directly responsible for terrorism does not change the fact that we gave them a motivation for violent resistance against what they perceive to be the Western conqueror, and thus we share a degree of responsibility for the hatred we receive from the Muslim world. People don't decide to be terrorists 'just because'. Rather, they must always have a motivation, and running away from our blame at supplying that motivation is simply denial.
Hamas would not have existed had it not been for the Jewish takeover and the subsequent concentration of the Palestinians into a small strip of land under unbearable population density and living conditions. We must understand our share of the motivation, and thus, we must understand that by continued unrestrained military activities, we validate their motivations and causes for hatred (can the democratization of Iraq against its will not be viewed as oppressive cultural imperialism?). Instead, we must work towards disproving these motivations and displaying our moral superiority, and thus preventing ourselves from degenerating into the terrorists' game of constantly brewed destruction and hatred. You cannot kill an ideology, which is what Arabic terrorism is founded upon. War alone will not solve the problem of terrorism; we must work on more peaceful methods to break out of the cycle.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Absolutely nothing evil about it, nor unjust.
Yeah, I'm not going to say my explanation, because this is turning dangerously close into another repetitive debate. Best to stop it before it explodes.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
That's fine but I never claimed Toby Keith understood politics nor did he claim to. Moore doesn't understand politics, which is why his extreme leftist bullshit is on the level of hollywood actors.
Yeah, you'll understand that I think many uber conservative leaders aren't inspirational because I disagree with everything they stand for, right? Same applies to Michael Moore.
The fact that terrorists are ultimately the ones directly responsible for terrorism does not change the fact that we gave them a motivation for violent resistance against what they perceive to be the Western conqueror, and thus we share a degree of responsibility for the hatred we receive from the Muslim world. People don't decide to be terrorists 'just because'. Rather, they must always have a motivation, and running away from our blame at supplying that motivation is simply denial.
Hamas would not have existed had it not been for the Jewish takeover and the subsequent concentration of the Palestinians into a small strip of land under unbearable population density and living conditions. We must understand our share of the motivation, and thus, we must understand that by continued unrestrained military activities, we validate their motivations and causes for hatred (can the democratization of Iraq against its will not be viewed as oppressive cultural imperialism?). Instead, we must work towards disproving these motivations and displaying our moral superiority, and thus preventing ourselves from degenerating into the terrorists' game of constantly brewed destruction and hatred. You cannot kill an ideology, which is what Arabic terrorism is founded upon. War alone will not solve the problem of terrorism; we must work on more peaceful methods to break out of the cycle.
Yeah, you'll understand that I think many uber conservative leaders aren't inspirational because I disagree with everything they stand for, right? Same applies to Michael Moore. [/B]
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
We didn't give them motivation. We gave them a new justification to use.
There's a difference between motivation and justification. They were doing what they were doing before we went in there, so they needed someone new to take their blame on, and yes I agree it was us.
Terrorism is born out of a dual motivation: religious extremism, which is, in itself, amplified by perceived (and occasionally not so perceived) cultural imperialism coming from the west. Continually attempting to force them down with military force will only feed their perceived justification, and thus encourage them to continue terrorism. Terrorists feed upon violence and radicalism, because these are the standards they perceive as noble- according to their relativist cultural morality. We cannot fight them in their way; it may result in a temporary solution, but never a permanent one.
I don't have a conclusive way to solve terrorism, but I can tell you that military force is not an integral part. Among these- the legalization of drugs (a large part of the profit made by terrorist organizations is via the exportation of illegal drugs and the taking of some of the profit), economic sanctions and diplomacy against countries that fund terrorism, and, occasional, restrained but intimidating military force. We need to present our interests in a less aggressive manner, and thus take away from the credibility of their motivations.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
A radical fundamentalist group would not have existed had Israel not become Israel? I beg to differ. As long as there are Jews in the middle east, there will be radical fundamentalist groups. They hated us before Israel was form, and they'll always hate us. This is the way of the world, despite you thinking people are "good". War might not solve terrorism, but neither will peace. Israel will always have a strong military because it's the only one of it's kind, in the center of the middle east, right in the middle where everybody wants to see them destroyed. It's hilarious if anyone would try to look down on them for constantly having a military.
But again, peace won't solve terrorism, because radicals can't be reasoned with. My way of fixing the problem is too radical, while yours is too liberal and unrealistic.
The Palestinians did not have a single problem with us Jews before the colonizations of Israel by Jewish forces, which resulted in the forcing of Palestinians away from their home- it is only logical that it causes hatred: it's the natural human reaction. Subsequently, in their failure to use reason and in our failure to act with compassion, logic, and fairness, we have only managed to come up with several 'non-permanent' solutions, like Gaza, which only breed hatred from the Palestinians. The Gaza strip is not a country; no human being can be expected to survive under these conditions. They have nothing. No money, no natural resources, no space, no educational capabilities; it's only natural that they hate us, to a degree rightfully, for forcing them into this situation.
Which is why support for Hamas exists and will always exist so long as we appear as the aggressive conqueror. In order to stop it, we must use our power as the strong, modern nation in order to reach a diplomatic solution, enable the Palestinians to lead a suitable existence (even if it harms the Biblical image of Israel), place the subtle threat of military force, and ultimately destroy their image of us as an evil nation. Hamas has a motivation and it has a justification, and from the Palestinians' point of perspective, their intent is inherently noble. Every human being has a degree of reason, nor can we call them unreasonable without attempting to engage in civilized negotiations.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Of course many uber conservative leaders aren't inspirational. You think I follow O'reilly or Rush? They're blubbering idiots that need to hear themselves speak. But Michael Moore is the same kind of idiot.
Well, I disagree on Michael Moore being an idiot (he's also an immensely talented filmmaker, if not a politician).
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Terrorism is born out of a dual motivation: religious extremism, which is, in itself, amplified by perceived (and occasionally not so perceived) cultural imperialism coming from the west. Continually attempting to force them down with military force will only feed their perceived justification, and thus encourage them to continue terrorism. Terrorists feed upon violence and radicalism, because these are the standards they perceive as noble- according to their relativist cultural morality. We cannot fight them in their way; it may result in a temporary solution, but never a permanent one.
And i disagree about how we can fight the terrorists. I think we CAN fight their way and succeed beyond our wildest imaginations. The only problem with that is that we'll be using their standards of mass genocide and that won't make us any better. However, this is what it might ultimately come down to.
We cannot in any way fight radicals with peace. This simply does not work and it has never worked, no matter how many times you bring up this idea.
I don't have a conclusive way to solve terrorism, but I can tell you that military force is not an integral part. Among these- the legalization of drugs (a large part of the profit made by terrorist organizations is via the exportation of illegal drugs and the taking of some of the profit), economic sanctions and diplomacy against countries that fund terrorism, and, occasional, restrained but intimidating military force. We need to present our interests in a less aggressive manner, and thus take away from the credibility of their motivations.
The Palestinians did not have a single problem with us Jews before the colonizations of Israel by Jewish forces, which resulted in the forcing of Palestinians away from their home- it is only logical that it causes hatred: it's the natural human reaction. Subsequently, in their failure to use reason and in our failure to act with compassion, logic, and fairness, we have only managed to come up with several 'non-permanent' solutions, like Gaza, which only breed hatred from the Palestinians. The Gaza strip is not a country; no human being can be expected to survive under these conditions. They have nothing. No money, no natural resources, no space, no educational capabilities; it's only natural that they hate us, to a degree rightfully, for forcing them into this situation.
Which is why support for Hamas exists and will always exist so long as we appear as the aggressive conqueror. In order to stop it, we must use our power as the strong, modern nation in order to reach a diplomatic solution, enable the Palestinians to lead a suitable existence (even if it harms the Biblical image of Israel), place the subtle threat of military force, and ultimately destroy their image of us as an evil nation. Hamas has a motivation and it has a justification, and from the Palestinians' point of perspective, their intent is inherently noble. Every human being has a degree of reason, nor can we call them unreasonable without attempting to engage in civilized negotiations.
Well, I disagree on Michael Moore being an idiot (he's also an immensely talented filmmaker, if not a politician).
To each his own.
Yeah, mate, I don't want this to turn into another four-page debate, but at least understand these facts and opinions:
1. Terrorism and radicalism always existed; however, as the stronger force at the moment, we have the ability to break out of the cycle of radicalism by not fighting their terrorists their own way, which only brews more hate and validates the terrorists' perceived cause. We have never in history engaged in full, rational negotiations with fundamentalists, because we have labeled them irrational beforehand, without considering their motivations in the slightest. Simply because it's the way it's always been doesn't mean it can't be stopped.
2. The Palestinians you've met (again, subjective 'personal experience'😉 consider themselves Arab-Israelis. They do not want to join a different nation; they are perfectly happy living in a country that is, by its own admission, not their's. However, certain Palestinians see themselves as an individual nation that deserves national expression, just like any other society- they have a different culture and national identity. In order to achieve that goal, some of them indulge in terrorism, which is inevitably supported by the rest of the group.
3. Israel is not the aggressor, but is the conqueror. It has occupied traditionally Palestinian lands and gave them to Jews; they removed Palestinians from their homes and left them to live in virtually abandoned villages, with none of the welfare services and benefits Israelis in more mainland villages get. Simply because it did not employ explicit military force does not mean it is not an aggressive force; ultimately, its aggression gives validation to the Palestinians' desire for national express and freedom.
4. Arabic nations do not want to accept Palestinian immigrants. So, why must we provide them with a nation if they do? Because we are different morally. Not only are we largely responsible for the Palestinians' situation in the first place, but we are a nation that knows what it is like to be an oppressed minority- we must hold on to our standards of compassion and fairness, and not degenerate to the standards of countries we perceive as primitive.
You don't even have to post a rebuttal. Just think about it.