You Americans are so damned adorable when you try to decide who should be in your club.
“Why won’t they let me in their stupid club for jerks?”
At least none of our states want to leave.
Anymore.
Thanks for presenting a great example of why you’re a deficit to SDMB.
No, it is not a lie. But your response certainly is.
And maybe you should work on your reading comprehension. If you can’t cope with even a minimal amount of inference, you could use some help in that area.
Your stupid hurts me.
From that, I infer you are an idiot.
Actually I didn’t have to infer it…
I think in the abstract, he is, in that his actions go against everything our nation stands for. Let’s say he’s traitor to America’s values and beliefs. And yeah, I think he’s far worse than Nixon. (Although, at least, he’s not really a crook-he’s more out in the open with his crimes).
But as for actual treason? I think that’s going a bit far.
However, when Wierddave says that BrainGlutton*-who, by the way, find annoying as well-should be up against the wall? THAT sickens me.
And I, Zoe, have no beef with you either.
*Although, can we pit Der Trihs next time? He deserves it far more than BG.
{GOP, neocons} =/= America.
From Wikipedia:
BG had started a thread about seeming efforts by some Americans to blame the loss of the Iraq War on their political opponents at home, despite their having negatively affected the course of the war in no direct way - just by their lack of enthusiasm for it.
The classic attempt to do such a thing was in post-WWI Germany, where the idea acquired a name. ISTM that to arbitrarily exclude that example from the discussion would be pretty unreasonable. As Wikipedia says, there are situations where references to Hitler, Nazism, etc. are appropriate.
BrainGlutton, it’s appropriate to use a small quotation. Full articles or quotations of several paragraphs are not permitted. Please feel free to quote a small portion of the article in this thread.
That rule does not apply to public domain material. All of Wikipedia is in the public domain.
One exception proves the rule - but if you like, I can bring up Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, Philippines, Vietnam, School of the Americas…
There’s a difference between perception and actuality. and yes, it is possible to be a credible threat and still be relatively powerless - just how strong do you think Al Quaeda actually is, outside of people’s imaginations.
Well, yes, because it speaks to the level of organisation and competence in the State. Hard to be a strong State if you can’t even save your own people from the weather.
Totally. My Govt. is up to maggots with that one.
Oh, wait, not another dumb fuck who thinks playing the tu quoque card actually means they win, are you? Have you actually read any of my previous responses to that kind of kindergarten shit? “My country, right or wrong” is soooo not my dance tune, fucker.
Fuck you, and fuck your debate technique. Cunt.
A “strong” nation, in my opinion, is necessarily also competent in its actions. If it can not competently protect its own interests, it does not deserve the moniker “strong” - its own incompetence is its weakness. So not catching Bin Laden and not saving N.O. are signs of weakness. America’s pitiful reliance on Urban Sprawl as a valid lifestyle will soon prove to be another.
You are assuming “strong” is a meaningless characterization unless it applies equally to every aspect of a party’s capacities. That is not true. For all I know to the contrary, Steven Segal may be incompetent to balance his own checkbook and even incompetent to tell an honest accountant from an embezzler, which may doom him to die in the poorhouse. If so, too bad for him. But if I were to get stupid-drunk enough to pick a fight with him, I know how that would end.
When someone says “my nation is a strong nation” I don’t assume they mean force projection. I assumed they meant “strong as a nation”, not “strong as a military power”. I certainly don’t dispute that the US has the ability to fuck the entire world over many multiples of times. But that’s not the kind of strength I was referencing with the Bin Laden and NO examples. I’m not saying it has to be strong in every aspect - a nation could be economically or militarily weak and still be a “strong nation” IMO (like, I don’t know, New Zealand or Iceland), but competence and cohesiveness are what I think makes for a strong nation (as opposed to a weak conglomerate).
That’s the way I read the “good, strong, beacon of hope” statement, anyway.
So, your pitting’s going well 
You really need to see the movie Once Were Warriors.
When smilingbandit started this thread, he handed me a free open-ended soapbox for political witnessing. I could spout off about free silver here and nobody could fairly charge me with going off-topic! 
But you better not mention Nazis in any context, apparently.
Haven’t, does it give the lie to my image of NZ? Pity…
Well, I’ll always have Iceland.
I read up on that just now - interesting bit of history. Spout away!
Holding up an isolated culturally and ethnically homogenous society as an example of a strong nation is like saying a wrench is better than a hammer. Depends on what your goal is.
Well, if it’s riding roughshod over other nations…