That statement only serves to provoke me which shows your knowledge and matturity. I don't mean this is a personal attack, I am just pointing out how pointless your comment was other to incite hatred.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That statement only serves to provoke me which shows your knowledge and matturity. I don't mean this is a personal attack, I am just pointing out how pointless your comment was other to incite hatred.
Don't take it as a personal attack. My comment was not pointless because we DO disagree...and are very polarized.
It's a great idea to sit around a camp fire and strum guitars, but if you can't agree on some of this stuff..what is the point...but I AM trying.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Don't take it as a personal attack. My comment was not pointless because we DO disagree...and are very polarized.
It's a great idea to sit around a camp fire and strum guitars, but if you can't agree on some of this stuff..what is the point...but I AM trying.
Oh so you meant "let's agree to disagree" I interpreted "No you don't, let's agree to agree" as if I have to agree with you.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh so you meant "let's agree to disagree" I interpreted "No you don't, let's agree to agree" as if I have to agree with you.
What I meant is that we we are on complete polar opposites here, and there's nothing to agree on (agreeing that we can't agree on anything)...
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not," Rangel said at a Washington news conference.
....
Though I've big reservations about Chavez, Rangel's statement is questionable. You can't embark on a neocolonial foreign policy, and deny the rest of the world a critical voice.
However, I wouldn't mind reading this soundbite in its fuller context.
there is only one planet, so there need be one democracy only -- and while i can't defend this proposition with sound forms of definitive-logic, humanity remains fated to war(s) until a singular culture of spiritual-consciousness emerges in earnest,..... "Democracy" supposes that every individual within its [Her] grasp is ensured an equal opportunity to influence the actions and future-effects of a social-state, and Earth has yet to witness such a grandeur -- and the U.S. is wrong is presupposing such a triumph.
i agree with most of what Chavez is quoted as saying by this poster, basically on the grounds that Bush is a liar, a tyrant, and a thief, and anyone with the gumption to oppose him [and 'his america'--(amerika)] is brave, stupid, and justified--and thereby noble; i do however take a deep complaint with the notion that there is something wrong with Georgie as a leader simply because of past issue in alcoholic consumption.
good-night.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
He certainly had every right to speak his mind at a U.N. conference. I don't care for some of his comments ... the alcoholism thing in particular was juvenile and petty, Bush has been dry for years ... but to say that only Americans can criticize Bush is silly. He's a major player, THE major player, on the world stage, and his decisions affect everyone on the planet. They're certainly free to comment.
Well Hippiemom, I guess its just you and me on this particular page. I guess everyone seemed to miss Rangel's glaring statement about where the UN is located - which is completely immaterial. Its considered neutral territory, where peiople from around the globe are allowed, nay expected, to voice their opinions on a host of topics. If Rangel or other Americans can't divest themselves of their nationality when it comes to the neccesary geographical appointment of an international institution, then they shouldn't be allowed to host said institution.
And by the way, I find myself agreeing with you alot.
Well Hippiemom, I guess its just you and me on this particular page. I guess everyone seemed to miss Rangel's glaring statement about where the UN is located - which is completely immaterial. Its considered neutral territory, where peiople from around the globe are allowed, nay expected, to voice their opinions on a host of topics. If Rangel or other Americans can't divest themselves of their nationality when it comes to the neccesary geographical appointment of an international institution, then they shouldn't be allowed to host said institution.
I agree that people should be able to voice their upsets and opinions about the world leaders.
(But I also believe that the pot calling the kettle black is unnecessary)
I swear, some American's have their heads so far up their asses...
So it's ok to criticize the Iraqi regime, the Iranian regime, the Palestinian Authority, etc..
The list of countries Bush has criticized and gone as far as to say they are evil and god instructs him to defeat them. Fuck! How stupid can people be?
Bush is getting what he gives, he is a hipocritical ass tard, I'd cap his ass myself if I believed in that sort of thing.
Chavez can topple the U.S. government for all I care, this shows how truly fucked it is. To all you Americans: you are due for a real rude awakening, you will be knocked off your holier than thou throne made out of bullshit; wake up and smell the coffee, your government is belligerent, hipocritical and stupid
Every time I read about some stupid statements like these I feel like ending my life to secure me from this insanity. Bush is absolutely insane and apparently so are his proponents.
It's called the Fundamental Attribution Error and Selective Memory. Not being an asshat should be one of the presidential requirements.
Remind me again who is sitting on a "holier than thou throne"...
(hint: find a piece of especially reflective glass)
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
"You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president," Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, scolded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
I'll start with this. I dare ask would Bush show up in a hostile environment better yet open his yap and preach to the crowd? Move the UN to Iraq and then everybody can show up and beef and nobody will complain.
"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not," Rangel said at a Washington news conference.
I think the statement should read, like a smart american that we know some of you may be. "I know we have American forces all around the world and those people should be entitled to say what they want about our abuse of power. But what should I expect from somebody in power in the US. When an American does criticize Bush they are not patriotic enough. Or are bad. This person should remove their rosy glasses after they get their head out of their ass and see the world for what it really is.
I'm no fan of Rangel and this move is FAR from classy. Rangel has said just as idiotic statements about Bush that Chavez had. The only reason for this half-hearted attempt is because he knows the mid-terms are looking worse for the Dems.
You are absolutely right, Purple Hawk. My extremely low expectations of the Dems clouded my vision on this one. Rangel is an idiot.
Bush wouldn't be allowed to speak his mind in Venezuela. I'm all in favor of the UN being moved to Iraq. I want that piece of shit organization out of my city.
"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not," Rangel said at a Washington news conference.
Why should criticism of Bush be restricted to Americans? The actions of Bush and his thugs have consequences for all of us. Not just Americans. I'll criticise Bush anytime I want. Fuck Him! He's a half-witted monkey-brained fratboy. Fuck him and all his kind!
Why should criticism of Bush be restricted to Americans? The actions of Bush and his thugs have consequences for all of us. Not just Americans. I'll criticise Bush anytime I want. Fuck Him! He's a half-witted monkey-brained fratboy. Fuck him and all his kind!
Bush wouldn't be allowed to speak his mind in Venezuela. I'm all in favor of the UN being moved to Iraq. I want that piece of shit organization out of my city.
Do people here honestly believe that if Bush went to Venezuela and criticized Chavez he'd be put in prison or something? Maybe gagged so he couldn't speak his mind?
Seriously, I have my reservations about Chavez, but some people are just paranoid.
I was walking around NYC with my wife the other night and wondering where these assholes were - probably eating at some fancy restaurants and living it up. It makes me sick.
No shit? I always imagined that heads of state would often be found munching chicken nuggets in MacDonalds!
Bush wouldn't be allowed to speak his mind in Venezuela. I'm all in favor of the UN being moved to Iraq. I want that piece of shit organization out of my city.
And all this time I thought you lived across the ocean. :rolleyes: ha ha ha
The thing with sarcasm is that it's meant to contain an element of humour.
You would find it really funny if I was on your side of the political fence. But I'm on the completely opposite side, thankfully. Too bad if it's not humorous to you. Too damn bad.
My take on these comments is that...we have free speech in this country. If he wants to say those things about Pres. Bush...then he has the right. Hell..in this country we permit the KKK to hold rally's...so, w/ this being the case...Chavez has the right to say anything he wants. -Freedom of Speech, a notion this country was founded on.
(I agree though w/ the points that Bush couldn't go to Iran/Venezuala and say those things...-But i think that shows what is great about the U.S.)
We need to get back to those Ideals and stop being so hypocritical. (i.e. freedom of speech/press/religion - which are quickly dissolving into just words)
Like someone else posted...Bush has repeatedly called out a host of countries and leaders as being the "axis of Evil" and at times made comments like "God told me to do this/that". Bush has done the same things.
Let's be honest...if many of us were born in Venezuala...Chavez would be our Golden Boy.
"I love my country...because my country...is all i know...."
If you want to say i'm anti-american...whatever...I don't think so....but I do believe in Justice...and Fairness and calling a spade a spade. If we can go around the world telling people what they can and can not do...they certainly have the right to speak their minds about it. I'm quite sure the people from Iraq have earned the right to criticize Bush - it is not an honor held by just us Americans.
“Kept in a small bowl, the goldfish will remain small. With more space, the fish can grow double, triple, or quadruple its size.”
-Big Fish
"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not," Rangel said at a Washington news conference.
....
Though I've big reservations about Chavez, Rangel's statement is questionable. You can't embark on a neocolonial foreign policy, and deny the rest of the world a critical voice.
However, I wouldn't mind reading this soundbite in its fuller context.
No shit... "you don't come in my district" :rolleyes:
I could detect at least five or six eddievedderism in Chavez's speech, by the way.
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
My take on these comments is that...we have free speech in this country.
Who is "we"? Last I knew Chavez was a foreign national. Do you have information to dispute that? Or are you suggesting that our constitutional rights now extend to everyone?
Chavez had the right to speak in front of the General Assembly at the UN. No question. And we have the right to laugh at him and call him a shitbag. But he did not have the right to wander into a church in NYC and speak. That was a privilege granted to him by the US govt. One which I'm certain wouldn't have been reciprocated.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Let's be honest...if many of us were born in Venezuala...Chavez would be our Golden Boy.
Good point. I 'd go even further and say that if you were from Latin America, and had the experiences that they have had with the U.S., then you too might not view Chavez as the devil he's being made out to be by the U.S.. American involvement in that part of the world has hardly been upstanding or exemplary.
Let's be honest...if many of us were born in Venezuala...Chavez would be our Golden Boy.
Good point. I 'd go even further and say that if you were from Latin America, and had the experiences that they have had with the U.S., then you too might not view Chavez as the devil he's being made out to be by the U.S.. American involvement in that part of the world has hardly been upstanding or
exemplary.
Who is "we"? Last I knew Chavez was a foreign national. Do you have information to dispute that? Or are you suggesting that our constitutional rights now extend to everyone?
Chavez had the right to speak in front of the General Assembly at the UN. No question. And we have the right to laugh at him and call him a shitbag. But he did not have the right to wander into a church in NYC and speak. That was a privilege granted to him by the US govt. One which I'm certain wouldn't have been reciprocated.
Who is "our"....in 'our' constitutional rights? I would point to a document called the Declaration of Independence that says..."ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL...AND ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIEABLE RIGHTS, AMONG THEM ARE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS".
this was before there was an America...it mentions nothing of having to be an American to receive these rights. Lets not forget this country was founded by ex-pats from England.
as far as i know...these statements had no *astricts* pertaining to nationality or country of origin. They were comments made to encompase human beings.
I've already said...that what makes this country great in many respects is the fact that we would let someone come into our country and have freedom of speech. Its the fact that you could do that in America and not places like Iran/Venezuela, that makes other countries possibly "want" our system of gov't and laws/rules - which we usually claim. (agree w/ you on that point).
But, I would also go so far as to say...that if you are not willing to grant everyone the freedom of speech...then in fact...you do not have any freedom of speech. Does this mean you have to show a passport in the U.S. to say something? That certainly does not sound like freedom of speech to me...it sounds like selective freedom of speech.
“Kept in a small bowl, the goldfish will remain small. With more space, the fish can grow double, triple, or quadruple its size.”
-Big Fish
Who is "our"....in 'our' constitutional rights? I would point to a document called the Declaration of Independence that says..."ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL...AND ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIEABLE RIGHTS, AMONG THEM ARE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS".
this was before there was an America...it mentions nothing of having to be an American to receive these rights. Lets not forget this country was founded by ex-pats from England.
as far as i know...these statements had no *astricts* pertaining to nationality or country of origin. They were comments made to encompase human beings.
I've already said...that what makes this country great in many respects is the fact that we would let someone come into our country and have freedom of speech. Its the fact that you could do that in America and not places like Iran/Venezuela, that makes other countries possibly "want" our system of gov't and laws/rules - which we usually claim. (agree w/ you on that point).
But, I would also go so far as to say...that if you are not willing to grant everyone the freedom of speech...then in fact...you do not have any freedom of speech. Does this mean you have to show a passport in the U.S. to say something? That certainly does not sound like freedom of speech to me...it sounds like selective freedom of speech.
The Constitution of the United States of American applies to US citizens. There are many rights afforded to US citizens which we don't apply to foreign nationals - voting, education, welfare / social services. We limit rights of travel, movement, employment, duration of stay, etc... to foreign nationals. We issue visas to some but deny entry to others. We allow some to stay and work, but others to only visit. The constutuion is not a universal document which applies to citizens of the world. Limiting speech of a foreign national does nothing to erode our first amendment rights as citizens of the US.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
My take on these comments is that...we have free speech in this country. If he wants to say those things about Pres. Bush...then he has the right. Hell..in this country we permit the KKK to hold rally's...so, w/ this being the case...Chavez has the right to say anything he wants. -Freedom of Speech, a notion this country was founded on.
(I agree though w/ the points that Bush couldn't go to Iran/Venezuala and say those things...-But i think that shows what is great about the U.S.)
We need to get back to those Ideals and stop being so hypocritical. (i.e. freedom of speech/press/religion - which are quickly dissolving into just words)
Like someone else posted...Bush has repeatedly called out a host of countries and leaders as being the "axis of Evil" and at times made comments like "God told me to do this/that". Bush has done the same things.
Let's be honest...if many of us were born in Venezuala...Chavez would be our Golden Boy.
"I love my country...because my country...is all i know...."
If you want to say i'm anti-american...whatever...I don't think so....but I do believe in Justice...and Fairness and calling a spade a spade. If we can go around the world telling people what they can and can not do...they certainly have the right to speak their minds about it. I'm quite sure the people from Iraq have earned the right to criticize Bush - it is not an honor held by just us Americans.
Comments
That statement only serves to provoke me which shows your knowledge and matturity. I don't mean this is a personal attack, I am just pointing out how pointless your comment was other to incite hatred.
Don't take it as a personal attack. My comment was not pointless because we DO disagree...and are very polarized.
It's a great idea to sit around a camp fire and strum guitars, but if you can't agree on some of this stuff..what is the point...but I AM trying.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Oh so you meant "let's agree to disagree" I interpreted "No you don't, let's agree to agree" as if I have to agree with you.
What I meant is that we we are on complete polar opposites here, and there's nothing to agree on (agreeing that we can't agree on anything)...
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
there is only one planet, so there need be one democracy only -- and while i can't defend this proposition with sound forms of definitive-logic, humanity remains fated to war(s) until a singular culture of spiritual-consciousness emerges in earnest,..... "Democracy" supposes that every individual within its [Her] grasp is ensured an equal opportunity to influence the actions and future-effects of a social-state, and Earth has yet to witness such a grandeur -- and the U.S. is wrong is presupposing such a triumph.
i agree with most of what Chavez is quoted as saying by this poster, basically on the grounds that Bush is a liar, a tyrant, and a thief, and anyone with the gumption to oppose him [and 'his america'--(amerika)] is brave, stupid, and justified--and thereby noble; i do however take a deep complaint with the notion that there is something wrong with Georgie as a leader simply because of past issue in alcoholic consumption.
good-night.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Well Hippiemom, I guess its just you and me on this particular page. I guess everyone seemed to miss Rangel's glaring statement about where the UN is located - which is completely immaterial. Its considered neutral territory, where peiople from around the globe are allowed, nay expected, to voice their opinions on a host of topics. If Rangel or other Americans can't divest themselves of their nationality when it comes to the neccesary geographical appointment of an international institution, then they shouldn't be allowed to host said institution.
And by the way, I find myself agreeing with you alot.
I agree that people should be able to voice their upsets and opinions about the world leaders.
(But I also believe that the pot calling the kettle black is unnecessary)
Remind me again who is sitting on a "holier than thou throne"...
(hint: find a piece of especially reflective glass)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'll start with this. I dare ask would Bush show up in a hostile environment better yet open his yap and preach to the crowd? Move the UN to Iraq and then everybody can show up and beef and nobody will complain.
"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not," Rangel said at a Washington news conference.
I think the statement should read, like a smart american that we know some of you may be. "I know we have American forces all around the world and those people should be entitled to say what they want about our abuse of power. But what should I expect from somebody in power in the US. When an American does criticize Bush they are not patriotic enough. Or are bad. This person should remove their rosy glasses after they get their head out of their ass and see the world for what it really is.
You are absolutely right, Purple Hawk. My extremely low expectations of the Dems clouded my vision on this one. Rangel is an idiot.
Why should criticism of Bush be restricted to Americans? The actions of Bush and his thugs have consequences for all of us. Not just Americans. I'll criticise Bush anytime I want. Fuck Him! He's a half-witted monkey-brained fratboy. Fuck him and all his kind!
Who said the left wasn't intellectual?
Seriously, I have my reservations about Chavez, but some people are just paranoid.
No shit? I always imagined that heads of state would often be found munching chicken nuggets in MacDonalds!
And all this time I thought you lived across the ocean. :rolleyes: ha ha ha
I have to wonder when the UN was created?
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant by my post.
So MacDonalds is a 'fancy restaurant' in your scheme of things? Interesting.
I don't get it.
Perhaps you should look up sarcasm. Grow up.
The thing with sarcasm is that it's meant to contain an element of humour.
You would find it really funny if I was on your side of the political fence. But I'm on the completely opposite side, thankfully. Too bad if it's not humorous to you. Too damn bad.
(I agree though w/ the points that Bush couldn't go to Iran/Venezuala and say those things...-But i think that shows what is great about the U.S.)
We need to get back to those Ideals and stop being so hypocritical. (i.e. freedom of speech/press/religion - which are quickly dissolving into just words)
Like someone else posted...Bush has repeatedly called out a host of countries and leaders as being the "axis of Evil" and at times made comments like "God told me to do this/that". Bush has done the same things.
Let's be honest...if many of us were born in Venezuala...Chavez would be our Golden Boy.
"I love my country...because my country...is all i know...."
If you want to say i'm anti-american...whatever...I don't think so....but I do believe in Justice...and Fairness and calling a spade a spade. If we can go around the world telling people what they can and can not do...they certainly have the right to speak their minds about it. I'm quite sure the people from Iraq have earned the right to criticize Bush - it is not an honor held by just us Americans.
-Big Fish
No shit... "you don't come in my district" :rolleyes:
I could detect at least five or six eddievedderism in Chavez's speech, by the way.
Who is "we"? Last I knew Chavez was a foreign national. Do you have information to dispute that? Or are you suggesting that our constitutional rights now extend to everyone?
Chavez had the right to speak in front of the General Assembly at the UN. No question. And we have the right to laugh at him and call him a shitbag. But he did not have the right to wander into a church in NYC and speak. That was a privilege granted to him by the US govt. One which I'm certain wouldn't have been reciprocated.
Exactly.
Who is "our"....in 'our' constitutional rights? I would point to a document called the Declaration of Independence that says..."ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL...AND ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIEABLE RIGHTS, AMONG THEM ARE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS".
this was before there was an America...it mentions nothing of having to be an American to receive these rights. Lets not forget this country was founded by ex-pats from England.
as far as i know...these statements had no *astricts* pertaining to nationality or country of origin. They were comments made to encompase human beings.
I've already said...that what makes this country great in many respects is the fact that we would let someone come into our country and have freedom of speech. Its the fact that you could do that in America and not places like Iran/Venezuela, that makes other countries possibly "want" our system of gov't and laws/rules - which we usually claim. (agree w/ you on that point).
But, I would also go so far as to say...that if you are not willing to grant everyone the freedom of speech...then in fact...you do not have any freedom of speech. Does this mean you have to show a passport in the U.S. to say something? That certainly does not sound like freedom of speech to me...it sounds like selective freedom of speech.
-Big Fish
The Constitution of the United States of American applies to US citizens. There are many rights afforded to US citizens which we don't apply to foreign nationals - voting, education, welfare / social services. We limit rights of travel, movement, employment, duration of stay, etc... to foreign nationals. We issue visas to some but deny entry to others. We allow some to stay and work, but others to only visit. The constutuion is not a universal document which applies to citizens of the world. Limiting speech of a foreign national does nothing to erode our first amendment rights as citizens of the US.
Well said.