Just when you thought people with morals would be mourning:

RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

I'm happy for you. And if you want prosecute me for mistakes made in the past, please do, but don't be surprised if I don't pay any further attention to it.
 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

Of course he's right, but that's how the world works.

If you want to be big and powerful, people start expecting things from you. Of course they don't expect anything from Switzerland, it's too small to do anything of any consequence anyway. And thought Switzerland generally classifies as "Western", thus you'd expect people to make some demands of it, it's always had the same policy, which is why no one cares, and which is why a lot of people would complain if America turned back into it's isolationism (face it, nobody REALLY cared before WW II, during and after, sure, but before, who cared?)

Suck it up, dude, the world's a harsh place.
 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

>They do not need a moderator,
>this may sound ironic they
>need an emperor just like
>when Rome ruled over Europe,
>one nation = one target.

The Roman imperial system really worked very badly. Really. They got a lot more bad than good from it.

>20 nations = 19 targets ,
>you can always blame the
>other nations.
>The blame game is an easy
>one: point and accuse.

Oh yes, but that's what the EU is formed, and why some want one unified Europe. Though the real big reason for it is, of course, (economic). Bunch of greedy guys we are.

>Sorry to say this Xotor but
>you, heck all America (usa
>and canada) though they were
>on top of the world
>where no one could harm
>them. For that a wake-up
>call was needed...

That doesn't just go for you, y'know, but for the whole Western world.
 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

Now this is a good chance for me to show how my social upbringing changes my perspective on American matters:

You say your infastructure is fixed, and the only problems your country has are social, and your government can't do anything about that. I say the government is SUPPOSED to be there to fix social problems. The government is the representative of the people and is there FOR the people, NOT for the economics, NOT for the political power and NOT for military purposes, it's main purpose is social.

An example is the Netherlands thought the last decennia. Our government changed drastically from social democratic to neo-liberalistic. The change in the people was obvious too; schooling went down, people care less and less for one another, crime rates are up, etc. etc. The government is like a role model, it's a mirror of society, but also forms the society.

By promoting materialism for the purpose of a good (UNSTABLE) economy, for instance, the government also encourages crimes.

"Unlike Belgium and many European nations, we have HUGE amounts of diversity in race, religion, ethnic origin, and creed."

That's just really silly. 25% of the Dutch population consists of ethnic minorities, and those are immigrants, not people with the Dutch nationality since several generations, but racial differences. These are Western people, in part, but mostly Turks, Maroccans and people from Surinama.

And unlike some countries (like Belgium and Denmark), the Dutch are famous for their ability to integrate and accept these people. This has been going down since the terrorist attacks, but even so, the general spirit in this country is that you're a fellow human first, and an immigrant second.

"Oh, and those would be?"

Fixing problems would be relatively easy, if you people learned, like the Europeans did ages ago, that to solve a problem, you go for the core, not the surface.

You don't stop terrorism by killing the terrorists.

You don't stop racism by arresting the racists.

You don't stop crime by arresting the criminals.

It's the core of the matter that's important. For terrorism, this is the basis they feed from, which is the anti-American spirit. THAT needs to be dealth with, and bombs don't do that. And racism obviously CAN be solved, don't tell me it can't. Our nation's primary racist party, the CD, lost it's last seats in the 2nd Chambre last elections, and now has a grand total of 170 members. 170 out of 16 million people! And like I mentioned before, crime is encouraged by materialism or consumism, so maybe that's not as effective as some people thought.
 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

Your past?! YOUR PAST?! Incedents that occured two or three weeks ago are locked away in some deep, dark, hidden past? Why do Order members have this "Oh, it's in the past" attitude?

Should Terra be completely forgiven for fucking the Order over, what three times now? Should Capone be forgiven for impersonating Terra and filling the board with spam? Would YOU forgive Capone for breaking away and forming DT? Should Grim Reaper be forgiven for incessant flaming?

Maybe we can forgive transgressions, but why should we ever forget? There are things we learn from the past, things that hold true even now: Terra can and WILL fuck over the Order given another chance, Capone is a good leader, but rather temporary, and YOU will bash America every chance you get.
 
Excellent.

Let's all get together and cut ourselves to bloody ribbons, while holding high the flags of our precious, precious Justice, Morality, and My Way.

Xotor, Doyle, and Kharn - you three are prime examples of why the humanity is still a bickering bunch of ignorant tribes holding to their precious prehistoric past. This is sickening.

You can ban me if my words somehow insult you, or flame back, but it will not change the fact that you three are one of the most ignorant people I've seen on this forum so far. Or you can stop this stupid "this country rules - this country sucks - no you suck - shut up you biggot", unlikely as it might seem to me.

I'm seeing the ignorance, hatred, fear, and accusations every day from the television and on the streets, last thing I know is to see it all on these forums.



 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

>>You think it is any easier
>>in the United States?
>>We have disempowered African Americans,
>>Native Americans on reservations dotting
>>the country, Mexicans flooding in
>>from Mexico, Islamic people who
>>are treated badly because of
>>the recent terrorism, LDS people
>>in Utah (where I live)
>
>What are those ?

LDS, better known as "Mormons" make up something like 60% of the population in this state. Don't worry, you'll learn ALL about 'em when the Olympics arrive here this winter.

>>who feel they are treated
>>as either the majority or
>>the minority (like my University),
>>Chinese people, Japanese people, Brazilian
>>people, you name it, we've
>>got it. And you
>>expect us to be able
>>to merely focus our attention
>>inside and fix what is
>>going on?
>
>Hate to bring this up, you
>you also have the KKK
>and the white suppremacist, the
>black panthers, those radicals in
>armed bunkers all over the
>place, the Omishes (ok maybe
>not),the gang wars in California...
>
>People (some) still hate each other
>in the USA and they
>would gladly shoot each other
>over race and/or religion, however
>since you have close to
>300 M in total population
>they are not making as
>big an impact as they
>would like.
>
>Hey i'm not kidding myself we
>have some of those in
>Canada too, we had the
>natives shoot at police ten
>years ago.

Yup, but I was just describing the different ethnic groups, not the social skirmishes that happen here all the time.

>>Yeah, we left Europe alone and
>>look what happened: Two
>>World Wars, both within fourty
>>years of each other.
>>You NEED a moderator.
>
>They do not need a moderator,
>this may sound ironic they
>need an emperor just like
>when Rome ruled over Europe,
>one nation = one target.
>
>20 nations = 19 targets ,
>you can always blame the
>other nations.
>The blame game is an easy
>one: point and accuse.

I think Europe has a fetish with creating new countries for every culture, sub-culture, and microculture. I guess it is easier to build walls than forge hallways.

>I do NOT think that the
>american had it coming. However
>i think they needed a
>wake-up call (not one where
>thousands of innocent civilians would
>die)

It certainly was a wakeup call, and I seriously don't know what else could wake us up like that either.

>Sorry to say this Xotor but
>you, heck all America (usa
>and canada) though they were
>on top of the world
>where no one could harm
>them.

That kind of comes when you're isolated from the more problematic areas of the world and have two bordering nations who more-or-less agree with you. Not that I would have it any other way.

>For that a wake-up
>call was needed... but not
>like it happened, never like
>that, not civilians, mothers,brothers, sons,
>sisters, fathers, kids.... never!

I actually feel sorry for those people in Afghanistan who die innocently from our attacks. I personally don't believe that bin Laden is personally responsible for the attacks, but he might've been indirectly responsible through financial support and supporting other terrorists. Even if he wasn't responsible, it is a pretty good excuse to get rid of him anyway.

As for the Taliban, they may be oppressive, but they're still a lot better than those old Soviet cronie North Alliance people. If the United States really cares about the people of Afghanistan, they will install a democracy or some other form of non-oppressive governing in the country and enforce it. No more "oh you agree with us... for now" governments.

Perhaps it can show the Islamic world that we can actually help out an Islamic country for once.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

>Now this is a good chance
>for me to show how
>my social upbringing changes my
>perspective on American matters:
>
>You say your infastructure is fixed,
>and the only problems your
>country has are social, and
>your government can't do anything
>about that. I say the
>government is SUPPOSED to be
>there to fix social problems.
>The government is the representative
>of the people and is
>there FOR the people, NOT
>for the economics, NOT for
>the political power and NOT
>for military purposes, it's main
>purpose is social.

Really idealistic there Kharn, but social programs require money, protection, and political support. A government's purpose is to protect the people (military), elect officials to represent the will of the people (political), and develop the infrastructure necessary to support the above (economical). Therefore for social change to occur, one must built up the infrastructure on all sides. Social change (a democratic form of it) is not achieved by forcing people to change, but rather to present opportunity for those people to make the change themselves. Scholarship programs, new schools, better government benefits, anti-hate legislature, equal opportunity acts, military service college tuition, and other goverment plans that involve other institutions and policies make it possible for social change to occur.

>By promoting materialism for the purpose
>of a good (UNSTABLE) economy,
>for instance, the government also
>encourages crimes.

However your government is not using the boost from economic gain to further social programs.

>>And like I mentioned before,
>crime is encouraged by materialism
>or consumism, so maybe that's
>not as effective as some
>people thought.

Actually most of the crime that occurs in the USA is the fault of our drug policies that jack up relatively worthless substances to incredible prices that demand that people commit crimes to pay for. These druggies, because of idiot mandatory sentencing laws push the real criminals out on the streets that don't have mandatory sentences.

Materialism and Consumerism creates small-fry burgulary crimes, not huge social problems.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

>>>>with a bank that
>>>>refused to return money owed
>>>>to post-holocaust victims
>>>
>>>That was cruel of them, but
>>>no worse than what a
>>>lot of other countries did
>>>and are doing.
>>
>>Oh really, like who?
>
>Sweden, for example. Turns out they
>helped out the Nazis quite
>a bit during the war,
>financially too. But it's all
>sort of covered up now,
>nobody talks about it.

Yes that was bad, but that was during the war. Switzerland refused to pay up fifty years after the war ended. I would say it is worse because they refused even to this late date in time to pay back the Jews. I would parallel it with Japan's refusal to accept, even now, responsibility and apologize for the attrocities committed in Asia during the 30s and the war.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Excellent.

To reiterate to what Xotor said: Deal with it or shut up, asshole.
 
How... typical

For your information, I am a human being, not a donkey's "hole". Although somehow these days I don't see much difference between these termins. However interested I am to see the moderators' response to this flame, I don't think there is anything else that is holding me in your company. Goodbye.



 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

>Really idealistic there Kharn, but social
>programs require money, protection, and
>political support. A government's
>purpose is to protect the
>people (military), elect officials to
>represent the will of the
>people (political), and develop the
>infrastructure necessary to support the
>above (economical). Therefore for
>social change to occur, one
>must built up the infrastructure
>on all sides. Social
>change (a democratic form of
>it) is not achieved by
>forcing people to change, but
>rather to present opportunity for
>those people to make the
>change themselves. Scholarship programs,
>new schools, better government benefits,
>anti-hate legislature, equal opportunity acts,
>military service college tuition, and
>other goverment plans that involve
>other institutions and policies make
>it possible for social change
>to occur.

That's true enough, but I'm one of those types that just loves drooling over underlying psychological matters.

Social fashions, trends or whatevers are huge shifts that usually occur with nobody knowing where they actually started, but that doesn't make them untouchable, nor does it mean that a spirit of "just give people enough money and they'll stop stealing" will work.

It all has to do with what you promote. This is partially the governments responsibility, through schools, for instance (the way Americans promote patriotism in schools), but of course also of the people themselves (as a group, not as individuals), as you said, and, for instance, churches (which is, of course, a group of people, but heck, what isn't :D)

>However your government is not using
>the boost from economic gain
>to further social programs.

Not anymore. We used to be a great-working welfare state in the '80s. Not many people were rediculously rich, but nobody was really poor either. We turned neo-liberalistic in 1992 (clear turning point in elections with the permanent dismission of the CDA as a party of any importance), since then, schooling has gone down in quality, social welfare is ripped to shreds, public transport is getting worse and worse, healthcare is horrible (I'm processing a number of forms for a party including some reports on healthcare by nurses and the like. It makes one want to cry, really), all because of neo-liberalism, really.

The advantage is an economically stronger country and a few rich guys. Big whooop.

>Actually most of the crime that
>occurs in the USA is
>the fault of our drug
>policies that jack up relatively
>worthless substances to incredible prices
>that demand that people commit
>crimes to pay for.
>These druggies, because of idiot
>mandatory sentencing laws push the
>real criminals out on the
>streets that don't have mandatory
>sentences.

Then legalize drugs. Works for us ;)

>Materialism and Consumerism creates small-fry burgulary
>crimes, not huge social problems.

True, but doesn't small-fry burgulary show a "fault" in mentality too? "I want something, thus it is mine" is not a good basis to go from, and if you look at how many Americans are sent to Military Schools because they're problem children, I think it's fairly safe to say that materialism and consumerism DO cause social problems. Big or small, they're not good.
 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

Damn, I had this pretty post, then this board messed up...

Ok, here goes, part II:

I don't know if you noticed, Doyle, but 5000 people died, America is at war and the entire world is in turmoil.

You find it so hard to believe that a historical event like this could not make one little boy look in his heart to see what his feelings are and why, and find that he is, in fact, wrong, for the most part?

I know that isn't the impression you got from the AOF, but the whole thing didn't sink in yet at that point. It has now, and it has changed me. Is that so hard to believe? My parents have been anti-America all their lives, and they changed. USA appreciated in the Netherlands sky-rocketed after the disaster, yet you don't believe I could. Do you think I'm that obstinate and thick-skulled?

Oh, I will admit, I still don't like a lot of things, but finally I realised that I looked at America in the way of "America did this, it must be wrong" and realised it was as stupid as those "America did this, it must be right" things I've been hearing too. It's not a huge leap, but I'm not the same anymore.

Hell, don't you agree with me that nobody's the same anymore?
 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Oct-20-01 AT 09:33PM (GMT)[p]>I actually feel sorry for those
>people in Afghanistan who die
>innocently from our attacks.
>I personally don't believe that
>bin Laden is personally responsible
>for the attacks, but he
>might've been indirectly responsible through
>financial support and supporting other
>terrorists. Even if he
>wasn't responsible, it is a
>pretty good excuse to get
>rid of him anyway.

Reminds me of a "Volkskrant" article I read a while ago. "Why Osama bin Laden can't be brought to justice"

International court of justice: Unacceptable for America, especially seeing how, with the available "evidence", they'll hardly be bound to give him any jail-time, and life at the most.

American court of justice: Impossible. Courst of justice have to be unbiased...How're you going to do that? And furthermore, the jury must be made up of peers: Shouldn't that include a religious fanatic muslim? I'm sure he'll condemn Bin Laden...

And Osama's lawyer would be bound to point out that the court can't be unbiased (even if somehow they manage to make it unbiased). Which leaves the judge with the choice of sending Osama to an international court (not an option really) or continuing the case, which would make a mockery of the entire American justice system.

Islamic court of justice: Not an option. They don't consider killing non-Islamics a crime. So unless there were Islamic people in the twin towers...

Accidental execution by a soldier in Afghanistan: There we go.

It would be such an embarassement to the world if Bin Laden turned himself over. What would we do then?

Or if he fled to the Netherlands. You see, legally speaking, we don't give other countries prisoners unless they can guarantee he will not get the death sentence :D

>As for the Taliban, they may
>be oppressive, but they're still
>a lot better than those
>old Soviet cronie North Alliance
>people. If the United
>States really cares about the
>people of Afghanistan, they will
>install a democracy or some
>other form of non-oppressive governing
>in the country and enforce
>it. No more "oh
>you agree with us... for
>now" governments.
>
>Perhaps it can show the Islamic
>world that we can actually
>help out an Islamic country
>for once.

Dude, you rock out! That's exactly the point I was making with the "hit something at the fundaments, not the surface", stuff
 
RE: Excellent.

>To reiterate to what Xotor said:
> Deal with it or
>shut up, asshole.

That was uncalled for Doyle. Flaming is still not allowed on this board. You being a long-time regular doesn't change anything at all, so I'm giving you a warning. Don't do it again.
 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

>International court of justice: Unacceptable for
>America, especially seeing how, with
>the available "evidence", they'll hardly
>be bound to give him
>any jail-time, and life at
>the most.

Or it would be a witch-trial, a real farce of a trial.

>Islamic court of justice: Not an
>option. They don't consider killing
>non-Islamics a crime. So unless
>there were Islamic people in
>the twin towers...

Well actually they would consider it a crime, well most of them that is. Most of the Islamic world condemned the terrorist attacks and support the war on terrorism (the concept).

It is funny though that these suicide bombers think they are getting a free ticket to heaven by blowing themselves up. The Quran condemns suicide and the idea that dying for Islam will land you with a free ticket into heaven is on the condition of defending Islam if I remember right.

>Accidental execution by a soldier in
>Afghanistan: There we go.

"Oop... dammit, if I had only remembered to use the safety lock..."

>It would be such an embarassement
>to the world if Bin
>Laden turned himself over. What
>would we do then?

I have often wondered what we, America, would do if the Taliban simply handed Osama over in the beginning. America *wants* a war. It would be a big disappointment for many people if we didn't blow up *something*. The only reason Bush announced that countries harboring terrorists would also be targetted was to expand the scope of who we can/will attack (and it is also hard to tell a country "oh don't mind us, we're just carpet bombing this stretch of land inside your country because there are terrorists there").

>Or if he fled to the
>Netherlands. You see, legally speaking,
>we don't give other countries
>prisoners unless they can guarantee
>he will not get the
>death sentence :D

Break out those sanctions...

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: Just when you thought people with morals would be mourni

>It all has to do with
>what you promote. This is
>partially the governments responsibility, through
>schools, for instance (the way
>Americans promote patriotism in schools),

Uh... we do? I haven't pledged allegence to our flag since elementary school. There is a lot of apathy here. More people complaining about what they don't have rather than appreciating what they DO have.

>The advantage is an economically stronger
>country and a few rich
>guys. Big whooop.

An exponential tax rate that increases as you earn more cash would fix that... heh.

>>These druggies, because of idiot
>>mandatory sentencing laws push the
>>real criminals out on the
>>streets that don't have mandatory
>>sentences.
>
>Then legalize drugs. Works for us
>;)

But I guess it helps our economy because it serves as a resource dump. The secret to a good economy is not having the money to pay people with, but rather finding something to pay people to do.

>True, but doesn't small-fry burgulary show
>a "fault" in mentality too?
>"I want something, thus it
>is mine" is not a
>good basis to go from,
>and if you look at
>how many Americans are sent
>to Military Schools because they're
>problem children, I think it's
>fairly safe to say that
>materialism and consumerism DO cause
>social problems. Big or small,
>they're not good.

True, though I think it is not from direct effects but rather indirect effects: the move from a family-centralized society to one of a work-centralized society. Values are simply not taught at the child level and therefore children are left to form their own ideas of the world, quite often using television and their friends as teachers. As the parents try to compensate for their lack of love in the family with gifts, the child moves more and more towards a materialistic-valued view of life. Getting stuff makes them feel better, not *having* stuff.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top