by Who are you? 91 Replies latest jw friends
It's time to re-realize that the US does not exist in a vacuum. That means listening to others, and participating in forums - and not acting like a bully when you don't get your way.
The current culture fad in America is to disregard the needs of anyone but yourself. This has been modeled most effectively by our current Administration: from blatant warfare to shooting your friend in the face (and getting HIM to apologize for it).
Simon
But hey, at least we don't follow your lead and have those we don't like assassinated do we?
Show me something other than "propaganda" to support that claim.
Why is it that the rest of the world feels that their opinions about the government of another nation should be taken into consideration by that government? Just about every country is sovereign unto itself and has both the right and the responsibility to govern their country however they see fit. When the British Parlaiment or the German Bundestag makes decisions, I'm sure they don't phone everyone in the USA for their opinions on their government before proceeding with their respective decision making processes. I'm sure that if I, as an American, were to travel to Europe and start offering up my opinions on the political processes of the governments of Europe, I would be dismissed as an ignorant outsider who didn't have the understanding necessary to properly formulate an opinion and I would probably be seen as a pompous ass for presuming so much.
International commerce has brought much of the world together on the playing field of the world economy. Just because countries work together toward certain common goals or engage in international trade, that doesn't mean that it is incumbent upon any government to change their government, laws, customs, etc., for the benefit of another foriegn government. To believe that governments all look out for each other and play fair is naive. That goes for my government as well as the rest of the countries of the world.
As an American, I'm always hearing about just how much the rest of the world hates us. I'm not sure how true that is. Just over 1,000,000 people from all around the world obtained Green Cards (permanent alien residency) last year. Who knows how many more immigrated here on various types of visas, or how many more came here illegally. If we're so hated, why is so much of the world's population dying to come here? I know why and you know why. It's because here in America, despite our faults, we pretty much have the best standard of living in the world and we have freedom. When my grandparents left Europe in the early 1900s and stepped off the boat at Ellis Island, they knew why they left their home. Everybody who makes the same trip today knows why, too. My wife, who is an immigrant, will be sworn in as a US citizen later this summer. She could tell you why she's here, too.
So, ,The-Rest-Of-The-World, hate us as much as you want. It's OK. We probably won't hate you back and the chances are that we'll still be here when you need us. As for myself, I try not to hate anybody, no matter where they come from. In the end, individually we're all people just trying to make a living and take care of our families and I don't have hate for anybody who is out there doing that. After all, it's the American way.
Trevor,
There is no better exercise for the heart than reaching down and lifting other people up.
This sounds very deep, significant and extremely 'cuddly', but others might view this as empowerment. It also presumes that what is offered online in the way of 'help' mimics real life. My own much publicized view is that those who view a discussion forum as more than what it actually is, need to have a chat with the other 'Trevor'.... you know....the one with the dead wife.
I spend a large part of my working and private life 'lifting other people up' in ways that many people would not have the strength to do. I just do not publicize my good deeds as others need to. I long ago learned as a JW that many people who like to be seen publicly 'suporting', 'lifting people up', and 'helping others', are actually working to draw attention to themselves by their good deeds. Rather like the elder who was always on call to 'help weak ones', all hours of the day and night, but treated his own family like dog waste. This is human nature it is true, but hardly commendable.
I am not impressed by discussion forum displays of 'support'. They are easy, glib and from what I have seen inspired by many mixed motives. I am impressed by those who post consistently, honestly and are interesting to read. If I wish to 'support' and 'lift up' any poster who needs help I do so via private mail, telephone, or personal meetings where such help is private and can actually do some good.
Have you figured out why I do not 'crush' everbody that I have interaction with on this Board? You seem to have side-stepped this point, which lies at the core of my 'behavior'.
HS
Simon: Of course I knew these people like to try and twist anything that is said to suit their agenda. I also know that the neocon types are not the brightest bulbs in the box so needed to put it in a language that they couldn't misinterpret ('cause I'm sure they imagine their copy and paste propaganda is some sort of intellectual debate ...).
Problem: The majority of those who found fault with Simon's words were not "neocon types," were they?
By the way, the term "Neocon" is just a propaganda-style buzzword that the liberal left uses to insult those who don't march in lock-step with their political views. It's the equivalent of some right-wing nutjob calling liberals "communists" or "hippie-freak-pinko-fags". That's not very nice. When people want to insult the viewpoints of others or can't come up with an intelligent response to a question regarding their opinion, they resort to name calling.
Hillary:
I am not impressed by discussion forum displays of 'support'. They are easy, glib and from what I have seen the result of many mixed motives. I am impressed by those who post consistently, honestly and are interesting to read. If I wish to 'support' and life up any poster who needs help I do so via private mail, telephone, or personal meetings where such help is private and can actually do some good.
Well too bad fella, because to most members of this forum.... displays of "support" are heart felt and backed by "true" motives despite your view. Just because you make statements about your own criteria does not make it true for others., or did you not learn that lesson as an elder for what, 20/30 years?
You have know idea how many here interact, by private mail, telephone, personal meetings etc.....whether they are interesting to read or not.
Just because you state something on this site does not make it so....please get over your elder wind bag self.
I for one, am not "Impressed" with your blow hard posts.....
r.
I am not impressed by discussion forum displays of 'support'.
Hillary - this is clear to anyone who reads your posts.
Just not taking such delight in insulting people would help to reassure the people who read your posts that you are as kind and supportive away from the board and in private as you claim to be.
Trevor,
Just not taking such delight in insulting people would help to reassure the people who read your posts that you are as kind and supportive away from the board and in private as you claim to be.
You seem to take a strange delight in missing the point.
When you are able to deal with the question that I have now asked of you twice, that is, why I do not take 'delight in insulting' everybody that I interract with online, you will understand more than you did before. Given your penchant for cherry-picking posts, your rebuttals are in fact dishonest.
My insults are all about response. If a person wished to insult me, whoever they are, they must learn like adults to take responsibilty for the consequences of their own words. I have done so from day one on this Board. Do you get it now?
I am not sure that I can simplify it any further without writing a nursery rhyme about the issue!
HS
The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[1]The first major neoconservative to embrace the term was Irving Kristol, in his 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[3] Kristol's ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[6]. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[7][8]
Prominent neoconservative periodicals are Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).
Just in case anyone wants a bit more in depth analysis than dorktacular is offering wrt "neocon".
Highlighting of "PNAC" mine. 'cuz it's important.
