Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Why everytime something goes in america..

106 replies to this topic
ATK
  • ATK

    Drive Slow

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005

#91

Posted 25 November 2005 - 12:59 PM

I dont understan how Bush got reelected? Its as if the American public wants the US to be destroyed. He takes 5 days of the week off to go on vacation. He send America into Iraq for no reason, and leaves the fat VP to do all the work while he takes all the glory.

Crokey
  • Crokey

    Builders Like Erections

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2003
  • Belize

#92

Posted 25 November 2005 - 02:03 PM

Well to start off with answering the orginal question of the topic, there are several reasons why people on this forum post news that is happening in America before Ameircans do.

The first reason is that the general demographic of this forum is prodminantly American so the news would be more apt for the general populace, while I understand that it would be nieve to think that the American population of this forum wouldn't read the newspapers, watch TV and read cnn.com etc it would also be nieve to think that people from foreign countires don't do the above either, after all the world has never been so open, due to transportation and technology.

This leads onto the second reason, there has been this, you could call it a stigma or stereotype or an old addage, 'Only in America' If you were to look at most of the stories that are posted from various sources (newspaper websites for example) they are usually of an interesting persuasion, somthing that would fall into that 'Only in America' category. It would be nieve to think that these sorts of stories only happen in America, these stories happen all over the world, but due to sensationalist journalism they are usually hyped up a bit more, call it a by-product of the movie industry if you will. Most of the time stories are usually reported in a more conservative style in most other countries, this isn't an unfounded comment as I have travelled somewhat and spent alot of time in the US and the style of broadcasting and presentation of stories in America are somewhat sensational.

The third reason is one that you have unwittingly answered yourself, these 'forgeiners' that posting these stories and links are not doing it for the sole purpose of informing Americans, but also informing the rest of the community who are as you might know are worldwide and as I mentioned above the stories are usually bizarre or outlandish so would provoke comment.

But in regard to some of the slightly off-topicness in this thread, one point grabbed my attention, when it was stated that European nations have caused more international confilicts than America when it was founded 400 years ago. Well 400 years is nothing compared to the history of Europe so in effect we've had more ongoing concerns which have led to conficts above and beyond those young stages of the American nation being founded. On that note for the first 200 years at least America was still finding itself let alone finding out the rest of the world, whereas countries such as Britain had an Empire which was collapsing so to try and save the collapse or reduce the damage conflicts were born out of this situation, so you are right about that fact but it should be considered that this was/is the case.

GC

Quadropheniac90
  • Quadropheniac90

    Confused Clown

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2005

#93

Posted 25 November 2005 - 02:49 PM

QUOTE
Haha, they are if they think soccer contributes anything to the global community.


I said in my post this wasn't very important, READ!

Bush is just a corrupted jackass. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'subliminal message during the elections' rumor is true.
But I don't have any bad feelings about the US, just about the stupid ass who's the leader of the States. For example, Bush does not understand that 'not doing anything about nature problems because the economy of the US might collapse' leads to the collapse of the world. If Bush sees himself so helpful, start being helpful dammit. Do something about Earth. We're not gonna make it another 100 years. But to go back ontopic, I agree with Leftcoast. biggrin.gif

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#94

Posted 25 November 2005 - 04:52 PM

QUOTE (Leftcoast @ Nov 25 2005, 04:28)
The "News" in the United States is very often more propaganda than news. Just look at Fox News, for example.

QUOTE
If you hate America, too bad. I don't, cuz I live here. Sux2bu, kthxbai. That's my opinion. Yes, it's arrogant, but so is verbally genociding a country because of our sh*t-for-brains president.


I have to agree, I'm tired of being branded an idiot just for being born in the US. I understand much of the world thinks we are all morons for letting Bush do anything more than suck his thumb and play nintendo. I want the rest of the world to know that many of us understand that he is an un-american, facist puppet of the large companies.

Unfortunatly for many of us, they don't care how we vote, they can cheat; they don't care what we think, they have a large propaganda machine; they don't care about anything but making themselves richer.

Fascism.

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

# Oppressive, dictatorial control.




We live in a constitutional republic. A semi-democracy. Nothing about any of our states resembles a true fascism in any way, shape, or form. We have no dictator, we have elected officials. Republican economic agenda is just about as far from "stringent socioeconomic controls" as you can get. The opposition is far from oppressed, they actually have a good deal of power in Congress. We have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to protest which are all opposites of censorship. This country is FAR from a facilitator of belligerent nationalism because, as we said, much of the nation is very upset with the administration. Racism hopefully ended a long time ago.

If you feel oppressed, or that Bush is a dictator, you need to either go back to school and figure out what the meaning of those two words are, or please get the f*ck out of this country.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#95

Posted 25 November 2005 - 10:38 PM

QUOTE
If you feel oppressed, or that Bush is a dictator, you need to either go back to school and figure out what the meaning of those two words are, or please get the f*ck out of this country.


I think your whole post is lame attach on me. At any rate, we have already talked about the US Gov. and Fascims a thousands times so just refer yourself back to one of those toppics for a rebutle.

Eviscero
  • Eviscero

    Upright and Locked Position

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Nov 2002

#96

Posted 27 November 2005 - 04:43 PM

There's no possible way you could even hint at the idea that the United States operates on ANY kind of fascist regime. Stop making stupid side comments relating our president to fascism. You only look like a prick.

ATK
  • ATK

    Drive Slow

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005

#97

Posted 28 November 2005 - 11:33 PM

I think the reason he used the word fascist was to show his hatred twords bush, not saying that the US is a fascist country. But if you did mean that the US is a fascist country, then I think you should check your sources again.

The_man
  • The_man

    Bad Muthaf*cka

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

#98

Posted 28 November 2005 - 11:38 PM

QUOTE (teun.steenbekkers @ Nov 25 2005, 14:49)
QUOTE
Haha, they are if they think soccer contributes anything to the global community.


I said in my post this wasn't very important, READ!

Bush is just a corrupted jackass. I wouldn't be surprised if this 'subliminal message during the elections' rumor is true.
But I don't have any bad feelings about the US, just about the stupid ass who's the leader of the States. For example, Bush does not understand that 'not doing anything about nature problems because the economy of the US might collapse' leads to the collapse of the world. If Bush sees himself so helpful, start being helpful dammit. Do something about Earth. We're not gonna make it another 100 years. But to go back ontopic, I agree with Leftcoast. biggrin.gif

Bush has actually been hugely green. in fact, he just passed some new hvac regulations that force all new air conditioning systems to run on a new super efficient refrigerant. Bush has passed numerous bills of environmental concern in his terms, and i dont understand why he hasnt gotten credit. It as if people think he is raping th earth or something just because he "didnt sign the kyoto accords" Fact, is, almost all of our congressmen were against kyoto protocol, (which excludes india and china, massive polluters) Bush has also funded hydrogen power research.

ATK
  • ATK

    Drive Slow

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005

#99

Posted 29 November 2005 - 11:03 PM

What about global warming and ozone destruction? Bush never though about trying to help stop thoes things. He was to concered about finding weapons of mass destruction that ended up never existing. Thaks to bush, the earth will now burn up quicker than it already was. dozingoff.gif

The_man
  • The_man

    Bad Muthaf*cka

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

#100

Posted 30 November 2005 - 01:49 AM

First of all, bush is doing things about the ozone in global warming. What are those caused by? Supposedly, air fresheners and refrigerants are causing the hole in the ozone layer, which may or may not be a natural occurence, considering its over Antarctica, and really has no bearing on the lives of normal people whatsoever. Global Warming (which is now being replaced by global ice age theories) is caused by fossil fuel emissions, which I just stated as being reduced by Bush's efforts. In Bush's years in office he has done a hell of a lot more than clinton did in his 8. Its not like I am a fan of bush or anything, I would personally prefer for a third party to be added to our voting register. However this Bush hating is getting really, old, and hating Bush for valid reasons is one thing, but stating innacuracies just makes you look stupid.

For your information, there are still missing WMDs that saddam never accounted for that we didnt find. They most likely went to syria. We found the agents, and the delivery systems, but until recently, we havent found a bona fide WMD all put together yet. But when we did find an example of Saddam's WMDs, the only mention it got on Msnbc and cnn was a short quip on the news ticker. Simply because it was "just a mortar round with sarin gas in it" If there is one, there are more. In addition there were other shells found containing mustard gas.


Its odd that people are still shouting "Bush, Lied, people died".

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#101

Posted 30 November 2005 - 07:27 AM

QUOTE
Bush has actually been hugely green. in fact, he just passed some new hvac regulations that force all new air conditioning systems to run on a new super efficient refrigerant. Bush has passed numerous bills of environmental concern in his terms, and i dont understand why he hasnt gotten credit. It as if people think he is raping th earth or something just because he "didnt sign the kyoto accords" Fact, is, almost all of our congressmen were against kyoto protocol, (which excludes india and china, massive polluters) Bush has also funded hydrogen power research.


You know, I'm not totaly in the closset, so I have to disagree that Bush is green. Why don't you show me some real proof that I'm wrong? I don't think you can, but I will ask any way.

It is funny that you call Bush green then point our that he did not support the Kyoto Accords. Guess what 3 things cause the most greenhouse emisions?

I also hope your not from the westcoast, if you were, you might know about what he is trying to do the forests in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. It's not very green, infact it seems to benefit large logging companies.

The_man
  • The_man

    Bad Muthaf*cka

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

#102

Posted 30 November 2005 - 11:57 PM

What you call "raping the forests" I call good forest management. Face it. Our forests are overly dense, specifically because we do not harvest trees and because we try so hard to put out natural fires. This leads to the commonplace megafires we see in many of our forests. Cutting down trees is actually better for the forest as a whole.
Its funny how environmentalists damage themselves.

And the Kyoto Accord is flawed, which is why it was rejected. I never said Bush was green, just that he does more green things than you give him credit for. Any way, there are much better ways to reduce pollution than signing flawed accords, avenues which Bush has pursued.

ATK
  • ATK

    Drive Slow

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2005

#103

Posted 01 December 2005 - 12:08 AM

QUOTE (The_man @ Nov 30 2005, 19:57)
What you call "raping the forests" I call good forest management. Face it. Our forests are overly dense, specifically because we do not harvest trees and because we try so hard to put out natural fires. This leads to the commonplace megafires we see in many of our forests. Cutting down trees is actually better for the forest as a whole.
Its funny how environmentalists damage themselves.

Not sure what you meant but, destroying forests may be good for themselves but not for us.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#104

Posted 01 December 2005 - 12:12 AM

QUOTE
What you call "raping the forests" I call good forest management. Face it. Our forests are overly dense, specifically because we do not harvest trees and because we try so hard to put out natural fires. This leads to the commonplace megafires we see in many of our forests. Cutting down trees is actually better for the forest as a whole.


You are correct about good forest management, but that's not what the Healthy Forest Act (or what ever it's called) does. The forest survace already cut down and maintined our forest. Bush plan lets private componies come in and clear cut national forest. Bottom line the forest in my neck of the woods were plenty healthy, if it's not broke don't fix it.

Why is the Kyoto Accord flawed, and where? Or is it that it did not profit the oil companies and car companies?

The_man
  • The_man

    Bad Muthaf*cka

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

#105

Posted 01 December 2005 - 12:53 AM

Ahem----China and india=exempt

That is flawed. Those places are so f*ckin polluted. And again, not only did Bush not support it but most of our Congressmen INCLUDING DEMOCRATS did not support it either.

For all the jabber about oil companies in their profits we still pay pretty low in comparioson to places like japan, russia, england and mainland europe.

You go ahead and be secure in your belief that your forests are healthy and wait for your next humongous fire. I know that about a year ago when I went to the west cost the forests I saw were way too dense, just begging for a fire. Of course im sure that in a scant year you have managed to make that all better now, yes all of your acres of forests have now been made so safe that you could dump hot coals into them and no fire would start.

There are hundreds of thousands more trees now than there were in the 1800s, and I think its time we went in and wiped large sections of dangerous overgrown forests of the face of the earth.

Or do you not want your houses to be built?

oh thats right. We shouldnt build houses, there are too many people, blah blah blah. Why dont we all just join the Zero Population Growth Movement? Or commit mass suicide. Either one works.

Leftcoast
  • Leftcoast

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004

#106

Posted 02 December 2005 - 07:55 AM

QUOTE
Ahem----China and india=exempt

That is flawed. Those places are so f*ckin polluted. And again, not only did Bush not support it but most of our Congressmen INCLUDING DEMOCRATS did not support it either.

For all the jabber about oil companies in their profits we still pay pretty low in comparioson to places like japan, russia, england and mainland europe.

You go ahead and be secure in your belief that your forests are healthy and wait for your next humongous fire. I know that about a year ago when I went to the west cost the forests I saw were way too dense, just begging for a fire. Of course im sure that in a scant year you have managed to make that all better now, yes all of your acres of forests have now been made so safe that you could dump hot coals into them and no fire would start.

There are hundreds of thousands more trees now than there were in the 1800s, and I think its time we went in and wiped large sections of dangerous overgrown forests of the face of the earth.

Or do you not want your houses to be built?

oh thats right. We shouldnt build houses, there are too many people, blah blah blah. Why dont we all just join the Zero Population Growth Movement? Or commit mass suicide. Either one works.


Sersiously, this your argument is not cutting the mustard. For one thing, you're not from here, so you don't have the same frame of reference for what our forest should or should not look like. Secondly, I doubt that you have much education in science to back up anything techniacaly which even remotly relates to your argument. Lastly, please understand, that these forest (west coast, california) need fire to be healthy. Yes, they need forest fires to be healthy, some plants will only germinate after fires come through. In recent years controled burns have been used to keep forest healthy, and safe from larger fires. Show me where controled burns are to be used in Bush's little plan.

At any rate, you still have not backed up your argument with proof/evidence of Bush's green thumb.

The_man
  • The_man

    Bad Muthaf*cka

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2005

#107

Posted 03 December 2005 - 12:10 AM

Jesus buddy, who do you take me fore? OF course I know that fire is important. Bush's plan doesnt need to use controlled burns because controlled burns are already in place. And it is pretty obvious when a forest needs thinning, the trees are horribly dense, so much as new saplings can not grow. All Im saying is not to complain when you lose sections of your gigantic forests, its like a giant complaining about losing his belly lint.

I dont need to prove to you because Bush DOESNT have a green thumb, it is just more green than you give him credit for. You act like the world is about to come to its end, and all I'm saying is it is sensationalist bullsh*t.

If you would like to find out what bush has done for the envorionment, look it up yourself.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users