i am not an american - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-15-2003, 07:55 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
verte76, I consider you to be one of the most open people on the forum.
Thanks! I like your posts too.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 07-15-2003, 11:06 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,574
Local Time: 04:08 PM
Re: i never drink, i'm underage

Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly



the climate during the cold war was a lot different than it is now. first off there was a lot more blind support for the president. secondly, and more importantly, during the cold war, the majority of americans hated the "enemy" (in quotes because communists were just continually misrepresented in order to create a hate to manipulate it so the president had more leway when he made horriffic decisions).

The federal government may have misjudged the direct threat the Soviet Union and other Communist states posed to the security of the United States, but given the atrocities Joseph Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge and others committed against their own people, I don't think the US should be faulted too much.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 03:23 AM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:08 PM
Re: i never drink, i'm underage

Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly
secondly, and more importantly, during the cold war, the majority of americans hated the "enemy" (in quotes because communists were just continually misrepresented in order to create a hate to manipulate it so the president had more leway when he made horriffic decisions).
The Communist governemnt in the USSR was evil. Not the people, but the government, most certainly.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 04:32 AM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


The federal government may have misjudged the direct threat the Soviet Union and other Communist states posed to the security of the United States, but given the atrocities Joseph Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge and others committed against their own people, I don't think the US should be faulted too much.

while i see these as valid points i would suggest that they are viewed in hindsight and not in the context of the cold war. things like the moscow theory (that all communism centered in moscow, no matter where the communism was or if they said they didn't ally with russia, the US assumed they were run by russia) were basically conjured up so that we could pin what stalin, mao, and the khmer rouge were doing on russia. while the atrocities that stalin, mao, and the khmer rouge were imposing were horrific, i don't think (and history doesn't lead to) it being the only reason for the cold war (the US involvement can really be summed up by saying power struggle, but it got more and more complicated as the cold war lasted).
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 02:46 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:08 PM
The threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War is best measured by its military capabilities it had in place in Eastern Europe and in other area's along the Soviet borders with the middle east and China. What one thinks of future Soviet goals or theory's on Communism means less than the raw numbers and potential of Soviet troops to cause serious harm and launch large scale conventional military offensives into western Europe, the Middle East, and other parts of Asia. That threat existed regardless of what one thought about things politically, and the West had to develop a proper defense against that threat.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 06:10 PM   #36
The Fly
 
Citron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Amherst, NY
Posts: 41
Local Time: 04:08 PM
I don't identify myself as a liberal or conservative, but much of the political controversy today should at least acknowledge that liberals (nonauthoritarians) seem more able to entertain and tolerate thoughts which they may not agree with, while conservatives (authoritarians) seem to have a more controlling approach. Therefore, one could surmise that during an authorritarian adminstration like the present one, we should expect greater media outrage when the govt. is questioned. I am implying that the govt. operates through the media, since the media feel that anything the govt. says is worthy of coverage. The important point is that if greater public dissent was expressed, to the point that the media felt that their viewership was endangered, it will give up its domination by the govt, as occurred during the Vietnam War. I understand that there are holes in what I am saying, but I think my simplistic explanation does generally apply.
__________________
Citron is offline  
Old 07-16-2003, 08:13 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
zonelistener's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: six convenient metro locations
Posts: 14,747
Local Time: 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Citron
...The important point is that if greater public dissent was expressed, to the point that the media felt that their viewership was endangered, it will give up its domination by the govt, as occurred during the Vietnam War. I understand that there are holes in what I am saying, but I think my simplistic explanation does generally apply.
Big holes.

You bring a VERY jaded view of journalism to the argument. In better journalistic circles, content is not going to be decided by amount of viewership. "Follow the money, follow he politics" was branded in my head in J-School, as well as Ethics (one of the finest Ethics in Jornalism programs in the US). And it is not an Idealistic view....the majority of journalist could care less about viewership/readership.....they want to tell a well-written, factual story.

It may come down to your news sources.


Quote:
Originally posted by Lilly
mrs. edge - i hope you're not upset with me. but let me explain the whole "being alone" thing. i'm saying that that's probably why you (you being those who aren't americans) don't understand our psyche. like i don't understand british psyche cos i'm not in britain. there are a lot of nuances that come along with being immersed in a culture that someone even as close as being in toronto wouldn't understand. even if you're watching our news it may still be foreign, ya know? it's like if you came down to the twin cities and i said "hey, yah, i'll meet you up in highland for dinner." you don't know where highland is, and it isn't on a map, and dinner here can also mean lunch. so if i'm in highland at noon and you call me at 6 to say "lilian!!! where the hell is highland???" then we clearly have misunderstandings due to culture differences.
From a joking standpoint...I would take this a step further...and say if you ask to meet me for dinner in Highland in the Twin Cities - I would expect to see you in between 5:00 pm and 9:00 pm (which HP restaurant, dammit, you are making me drool. I miss the HP restaurants). You have spent 19 years in the area, me 13...you say supper, I say dinner (I am still convinced that supper is a SD thing...the only people I know of that use that term are my SD friends).
__________________
zonelistener is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 12:32 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
I agree with you Moonlit_Angel. If the president is doing something that's not good for the country I love, then I'm going to be mad. I'm going to protest. This stuff about anti-war protesters being "against the troops" or whatever is nonsense. We weren't criticizing the troops. We were criticizing the big shots in Washington. And if we can't criticize them then we do live in a dictatorship and not a democracy. As far as I'm concerned my government is a democracy, dammmit.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Sting, I understand that people who support Bush are not "blind supporters". Some people have analyzed everything, and thought really hard, and have decided that he's doing the right thing. The thing is not everyone feels this way. I've read stuff and tried to keep an open mind about Bush, the war, etc, etc. I don't *hate* Bush. I simply don't agree with his agenda. That's not the same thing. I don't think he's a or whatever.
Exactly.

Yeah, I've called Bush names before, but that's just been out of anger at some of the things that have gone on with our government, some of its policies.

I don't know Bush personally, so I really shouldn't say anything about him as a person. I'll try and keep that in check from now on.

Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
I get as misty eyed as the next person when I hear Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA"
I don't. I personally hate that song, but that's just me.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 07-17-2003, 03:28 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:08 PM
Citron,

SADDAM is authoritarian. Liberals and Conservatives in the USA are not.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 11:40 AM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Citron
I don't identify myself as a liberal or conservative, but much of the political controversy today should at least acknowledge that liberals (nonauthoritarians) seem more able to entertain and tolerate thoughts which they may not agree with, while conservatives (authoritarians) seem to have a more controlling approach.
I would very much disagree with you on this point-Very much. It all depends on what tolerance issue is being discussed.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 11:47 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
kobayashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the ether
Posts: 5,142
Local Time: 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
It all depends on what tolerance issue is being discussed.
give us an example of what liberals are untolerant of?

is it corruption? j/k
__________________
im the candyman. and the candyman is back.
kobayashi is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 12:58 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:08 PM
Quite frankly, many liberals are intolerant of people who believe in absolute standards of right and wrong. This attitude is very prevalent in society today and even in this forum.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 01:07 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 04:08 PM
I guess it is because whenever people start talking about "absolute" standards, there is going to be disagreements about who the arbitrators of what those standards are and how they are defined. There is plenty of evidence that a great deal of death and destruction has been wreaked in the last century alone by those who claim to have a lock on absolute truth. Whether or not that means that such a standard doesn't exist is arguable of course, but it does provide some rationale for wariness on the part of observers.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 07-18-2003, 01:36 PM   #44
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,699
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
I guess it is because whenever people start talking about "absolute" standards, there is going to be disagreements about who the arbitrators of what those standards are and how they are defined. There is plenty of evidence that a great deal of death and destruction has been wreaked in the last century alone by those who claim to have a lock on absolute truth. Whether or not that means that such a standard doesn't exist is arguable of course, but it does provide some rationale for wariness on the part of observers.
Absolutely.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-18-2003, 04:20 PM   #45
The Fly
 
Citron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Amherst, NY
Posts: 41
Local Time: 04:08 PM
When I used the word authoritarian, I use it in a manner of degree, not in the absolute sense. I feel that the Bush administration is more authoritarian than say the Clinton ( not a supporter of his either) adminstration, such as in the issues of abortion or homosexuality. Haveing anti-abortion views disregards an individuals right to make decisions of what I feel is a personal nature and in effect make them suffer for their mistake. Being anti-homosexulaity reduces a homosexual down to their sexual proclivities, ignoring any value they may have as a human being. These are views that an authoritarian would hold, not a liberal-minded person. And again I am not placing all conservatives in this category. Thanks for the input.
__________________

__________________
Citron is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com