Originally posted by botankus
I didn't read the whole thread, jaden, sorry. So he was bashing Afghani's? That sucks. If people got a temp ban for bashing Americans and Mexicans, there would only be but a few eligible KMC members active at any given setting.
just giving them as an example...it seems you can get away with america bashing whereas taking the piss out of other countries is seen as a far bigger sin on this forum
dont know why that is though...
Originally posted by botankus
Another temporary ban. *shakes head* See ya on Monday, I guess. Anybody have any idea what he did (or Bardock, you can create a sock to let me know. I'd prefer if your username was "German Floozie."
User banned by Storm, for 2 days
Reason: Explicit, obscene and vulgar language.
Originally posted by jaden101
just giving them as an example...it seems you can get away with america bashing whereas taking the piss out of other countries is seen as a far bigger sin on this forumdont know why that is though...
whats great is when people bash americans as a whole for being ignorant and prejudice. as per group think, everyone ignores the blatant hypocrisy and pats them on the ass in approval. in fact, my very reason for making this thread. i admit that was certain then that my initial question would be shoved into the realm of rhetoric, given that there would never be and will never be a straight answer, disregarding the replies of those who never bash all americans. so call it a social experiment, and so far, a success imho.
Originally posted by PVS
whats great is when people bash americans as a whole for being ignorant and prejudice. as per group think, everyone ignores the blatant hypocrisy and pats them on the ass in approval. in fact, my very reason for making this thread. i admit that was certain then that my initial question would be shoved into the realm of rhetoric, given that there would never be and will never be a straight answer, disregarding the replies of those who never bash all americans. so call it a social experiment, and so far, a success imho.
I gave you a straight answer! Go find it, this page or the last!
Re: Dumb American
Originally posted by PVS
WHAT. SHOULD. I. DO> or more to the point, what would you do if you were in my shoes.
Well,if I where in your shoes, what I would do is simple, I would inform the person that I didn't vote and nor do I support President Bush, (though I do) BUT I would then support my country in anyway I could, solidarity! Maintain your dignity as an American! There's allot of immigrants every year who want to be American, so it can't be that bad a country!
Re: Dumb American
Originally posted by PVS
this has to be addressed.to open, ill give my stance. [b]this is not the topic, but just my motivation for creating this thread
:imho the whole "you americans dont do anything about it" argument is getting really old, and its baseless, childish, hypocritical, and downright eletist. what SHOULD americans who oppose current u.s. policies do? should we grab firearms and create anarchy? would you? what is this elusive 'thing' we are supposed to do which we are not doing already? all i read is "DO SOMETHING!!!!" but really, lets have a solution devoid of pinheaded rhetoric and insults.
now, THIS is the topic:
lets use myself as the model. i, pvs, am strongly opposed to the policies of the current u.s. administration. protesting is fast becoming illegal, my congressmen dont give a damn what i have to say, although my particular congressman (nj) seems to share my opposition, no thanks to me or any fellow n.j. taxpayers. so lets just say for the sake of argument that i live in.....minnesota....there we go. so now im in a corner and nobody's on my side.
list out an agenda of how i, the dumb american, can prove my worth and can finally be recognised among the greatness of everyone who is not from america, u.k., or isreal. no rhetoric, no insults, no bullshit damning diatribes which make the will of myself and bush one and the same. (example: YOU INVADED IRAQ!!! YOU MURDER INNOCENTS!!!! etc)
leave the high horse behind, and assume that i am genuinly a 'dumb american' and dont know better. its now up to you to steer me in the proper direction, or else you are ignoring your responsibility as an intelligent non-american to educate and help me understand. its up to you now to sheppard the ignorant. up for the challenge? here we go....
WHAT. SHOULD. I. DO> or more to the point, what would you do if you were in my shoes. [/B]
PVS, I assume by your post that you are a well-intentioned, moral individual. However, your rather reductionist take on an admittedly complex and sometimes morally dubious global situation needs some more perspective, I think. I don't know exactly what you are expecting in response to your post. It almost seems like you are seeking moral affirmation of your desire to be an armed militant/revolutionary. While I certainly cannot give you this affirmation, I submit to you that the state of civil liberities in this country are not quite in the dire straits you make them out to be. Contrary to your assertion, protesting is not "nearly illegal" in this country. Voice your opinion in a peaceful manner and let the chips fall. What else can anyone do?
The world, like our collective fate, is more than we know.
Re: Re: Dumb American
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
It almost seems like you are seeking moral affirmation of your desire to be an armed militant/revolutionary.
well, i guess, with all due respect, you cant read. sorry, i can appreciate the politeness of your post, but does it matter how polite someone is as they twist your words? imho no. and "all but illegal" refers to the routine arrests of protestors, such as the thousand+ protestors imprisoned in a delapadated warehouse in nyc during the 2004 republican national convention, or perhaps i should bring up how peaceful protest groups are routinely put on the nsa's list of terror suspects and thus spied on. is this the promotion of liberty?
should we just be thankful for still being allowed to protest under the perfect circumstance in which those protesting are completely out of eye and ear shot of those protested against?
Because that's not a very polite thing to do now is it?
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/misc.php?action=rules
Read them...
Re: Re: Re: Dumb American
Originally posted by PVS
well, i guess, with all due respect, you cant read. sorry, i can appreciate the politeness of your post, but does it matter how polite someone is as they twist your words? imho no. and "all but illegal" refers to the routine arrests of protestors, such as the thousand+ protestors imprisoned in a delapadated warehouse in nyc during the 2004 republican national convention, or perhaps i should bring up how peaceful protest groups are routinely put on the nsa's list of terror suspects and thus spied on. is this the promotion of liberty?should we just be thankful for still being allowed to protest under the perfect circumstance in which those protesting are completely out of eye and ear shot of those protested against?
Since I am not familiar with all of the particular examples you cite regarding government interference with organized protests, I can only respond by saying administrations of both political persuasions have been "guilty" of spying on protesters and other would-be "insurrectionists". For instance, it is well know than Robert Kennedy had Martin Luther King's Civil Right leadership closely watched. Was the Kennedy administration totalitarian?
Leaving aside the morality of any one particular case, do you not think it reasonable that a standing government keep tabs on groups of people it deems potentially dangerous or violent? Again, depending on the situation, I say that this is a reasonble precaution. Government is supposed to protect us from the violence of others, even violence erupting from civic protest--if it occurs.
Again, arguing in principle. The right to protest is not absolute or unassailable if that protest threatens violence and/or encroaches upon others' rights. The freedom to express political speech doesn't give you the right to physically disrupt someone's business or cause a public nuisance.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dumb American
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Since I am not familiar with all of the particular examples you cite regarding government interference with organized protests, I can only respond by saying administrations of both political persuasions have been "guilty" of spying on protesters and other would-be "insurrectionists".
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0435,ferguson3,56514,6.html
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
For instance, it is well know than Robert Kennedy had Martin Luther King's Civil Right leadership closely watched. Was the Kennedy administration totalitarian?Leaving aside the morality of any one particular case, do you not think it reasonable that a standing government keep tabs on groups of people it deems potentially dangerous or violent? Again, depending on the situation, I say that this is a reasonble precaution. Government is supposed to protect us from the violence of others, even violence erupting from civic protest--if it occurs.
Again, arguing in principle. The right to protest is not absolute or unassailable if that protest threatens violence and/or encroaches upon others' rights. The freedom to express political speech doesn't give you the right to physically disrupt someone's business or cause a public nuisance.
the assumption you run with is that the nsa is only spying on violent protestors, and assumption which is both blind and wishful
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dumb American
Originally posted by PVS
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0435,ferguson3,56514,6.htmlthe assumption you run with is that the nsa is only spying on violent protestors, and assumption which is both blind and wishful
I'm not making that assumption at all. I'm merely trying to tease out the rationale behind the need for domestic spying in general. I would think that the opposite opinion--that we don't need covert ops or spying--is "blind and wishful".
My other point, is that domestic surveillance is not new to the Bush administration and has been practiced universally by every president in the modern era. Whether good or bad, it is inseprably linked to the widespread growth and integration of telecommunications. Privacy is a relative term these days. Electronic data transmittal and the world wide web put us all "out there."
But in regard to the recent domestic "wire tap" controversy--which is a misnomer since only call records were solicited by the government--what is the problem with running telephone numbers and matching them with known terrorist data. If the computer pulls up the record of a phone call from Joe Q. American to Al Qaeda Charlie, what's the problem with flagging it and investigating further? And why not bank records, while we're at it?
Again, I'm assuming that you're an essentially well-intentioned person. Assuming that global terrorism is real and openly hostile to American interests, what's the problem with using data to convertly track people who want to kill us? Or those who help facilitate terrorist ends in this country?