[harbinger75]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you really want to take the stance of "I approve America's actions that alienate the world because I don't care what the world thinks," you can't also say "The reason I don't care what the world thinks is because I have no control over it." You have just as much control over America's actions.

I didn't ever say I "approved of America's actions that alienate the world because I don't care what the world thinks." What I said was that I am proud to live in America, be an American and I was very proud to serve in its military. Those are, once again, two completely different things.

If the U.S. government acts in a certain fashion and that happens to piss off the world, then my point was that I really couldn't care less that some random person from another country doesn't like ME because I'm American.

I wholeheartedly hold those in control responsible for their actions. Does that mean that I want to shun my country and be embarrassed about being American because our leaders can be @sshats? Hardly. You show me a country that hasn't had turmoil and scandal at least once in its history. There are no perfect people in this world, and therefore, no perfect countries.

No, I DON'T have control over what happens as the result of decisions made by our leaders. Yes, I have a vote, blah, blah, blah...the truth is, a MAJORITY of the people in any given country have to be in agreement for that particular idea to make a difference. So, I'm relying on other people to agree with me to make our voice heard.

No, I don't have control over America's actions. To say otherwise is simply being very generalist and, quite frankly, not correct.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I want the law, not what she thinks is the law. I want her to go and find for me where it says that she can't copy (for personal use on a different machine/format) a CD that she owns.

You missed the part about distributing it to all my friends for free.

I want that freedom. It's not real freedom until I have that.

Religious freedom is nonexistent until I can create a religion based on child rape and fully legitimize it.

Freedom of speech is nonexistent until I can directly threaten to take the President's life without suffering any repercussions.

Freedom with my music is nonexistent until I can freely make as many copies as I want of it, and distribute it at no charge (or, if I like, for an exorbitant fee).

Isn't that what freedom is? If you don't have freedom to the extreme, you have no freedom at all, right?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by harbinger75 

Generally, I'll vote for the guy who isn't AS full of $hit as the other guy.

Generally, people vote for the better liar.

We saw this last year.

-t

[harbinger75]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Generally, people vote for the better liar.

We saw this last year.

-t

...which is the guy who usually seems to be LESS full of $hit.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by harbinger75 

...which is the guy who usually seems to be LESS full of $hit.

You added the correct emphasis.

One could also say that the guy who is more honest (and would have turned out less full of sh!t) won't be voted in, because people like to be lied to.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You missed the part about distributing it to all my friends for free.

I want that freedom. It's not real freedom until I have that.

Religious freedom is nonexistent until I can create a religion based on child rape and fully legitimize it.

Freedom of speech is nonexistent until I can directly threaten to take the President's life without suffering any repercussions.

Freedom with my music is nonexistent until I can freely make as many copies as I want of it, and distribute it at no charge (or, if I like, for an exorbitant fee).

Isn't that what freedom is? If you don't have freedom to the extreme, you have no freedom at all, right?

I don't think you're even understanding what freedom is, Shif.

[Famousguy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Hostile takeover? Calm measures and diplomacy aren't going to work. Remember how the US nuked Japan in order to end World War II? Such a drastic and violent measure ultimately was required to end the war.

Yes, we did nuke japan, but not just because we wanted to test the results of the manhattan project on actual human beings, if we hadn't nuked them even more lives would have been lost, picture another D-day, even worse than the one at Normandy, now picture that a few more times since we would have to land on each island in greater japan, and now picture weeks, maybe months of heavy combat, banzai charges, booby traps, and the japanese military was actually training civilians to "defend" themselves, so we would have had to kill thousands of innocents charging at us with bamboo spears, we would have lost men in the thousands if not the millions, we might have lost the war, the japanese military may have forced us off the island and survived for years, the nukes were necessary to prevent even more deaths with death, which is controversial, but what the North Korean government is doing is not saving the lives of even more human beings, it's scaring the **** out of a lot of people and getting multiple countries ready for combat, not to mention the recent cyber attacsk against the South Koreans and us.