Video: Obama On Atheism

[latent aaaack]

Thanks, that was an interesting article, but it was about evangelical democrats who still steadfastly oppose abortion and gay rights and didn't include examples of supporting abortion and gay rights based on religion. I didn't see where any of them were changing their minds on anything except on compromises like a slight increase in support for democratic candidates who focus on reducing teen pregnancy as a means of reducing abortion rates (which is a very good idea for dems to finally come around to).

As for which candidate is more religiously nutty, the problems I have with both candidates go way beyond that and I don't think either of them are even as psychologically normal as Bush but maybe a bit smarter. Nader's cool because he doesn't want to teach me how to be more moral like creepy Obama does and doesn't want to bankcrupt the US on wars either like McCain does.

All I can speak from on the matter is about liberal Christians in my own family. My mother works in a church as an employee, she supports Obama and says her scripture most aligns with Obama's views. She never supported George Bush and believes him to be using the Bible in order to "use the public to do evil."

I really don't think this has anything to do with "religious commandments." Have you actually read the commandments? I think maybe 3 of them are represented in American law. I have yet to hear cry for a "Thou shalt not covet" law being introduced.

You need to keep in mind for Christians the Bible is two things at once, it's an absolute truth dictated by God himself while at the same time being a confusing set of passages that are open to multiple interpretations. This is what a woo-ish belief does, it's eternally confusing because it doesn't make any sense. The bible can be and has been used to enforce liberal concepts.

There was a good article about this subject yesterday in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../02/22/AR2008022202386.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Finally... After pages of bickering on the topic we're left with one simple fact. It's likely going to be Obama vs. McCain. You have to write one of the two names down. Does McCain make more sense to you? Does he appear less religious?

 

[kosai]

Nader's cool because he doesn't want to teach me how to be more moral like creepy Obama does and doesn't want to bankcrupt the US on wars either like McCain does.

Fair enough, I'm glad to see he's joined the race to give you the opportunity to vote for him if you feel he'd be the best leader. I'll be joining you if somehow Hillary gets the Nom. None of these people are going to solve every problem in 4 or 8 years, especially one as complicated as we've discussed here, it's important we keep that in mind.

 

[Elind]

This was a great speech... It's 40 minutes long, but if you've wanted to hear a no nonsense speech about those with and those without faith in this country, this is it:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938

Please, lets do everything we can to get this man into office and begin to heal some of this divide that has been hurting this country for so long now. Donate money, time, and especially get out there and vote!

Well I finally found enough slack time to listen to the whole thing.

He, or his script writers, or both, are pretty smooth and if he is actually elected he could possibly be a surprise (although I like to go on facts more than surprise possibilities).

However, to take the cynic view, I don't know where atheists, let alone Obama on Atheists, has anything to do with the OP. I don't think he ever said the word. He said secularists a few times, and he may even have said non believers, but only in passing in the sense of "pluralism", which was taken largely to mean pluralisms among believers. He mentions 90 percent of believers, but omits to mention that the other 10% are about as significant as all the black Americans put together.

He talks about making people be nice and that government can help make the responsible, whatever that means.

He mentions specifically the beliefs of "white" Americans, but not Blacks. He wants taxes to educate poor children, but doesn't mention that poor children are already educated as best they can be, short of taking them away from uneducated poor parents like the Australians tried.

He doesn't mention a single thing about the majority of "poor" children on welfare, that he wants to educate better; being bred by children on welfare.

I think he has a talent for short term accommodation. He got applause for saying things about tolerance among religion (without ever mentioning atheists), and even being pro choice, that would have gotten others damn near lynched by the faithful, had he been white.

My opinion, and not just based on this speech without much substance that I hadn't heard before, is that if elected he will will have a shorter honeymoon than GWB could ever have had.

 

[funk de fino]

My tuppence worth as a pro american abroad who sees more and more people turning from the US due to GWB and recent policies abroad

The US world image is pretty much rock bottom even with historical allies.

The majority of this is due to GWB

You need someone like Obama as a sea change to try to win back this ground especially with the re-emergence of Russia as a main player again and with China as strong as they are. If Clinton or McCain get in (more McCain IMO) this chance will be lost and a lot of outsider will see nothing changing

I do not necessarily believe he has all the answers or experience needed or the policies but I think he would restore some sort of trust in the american voting public as seen from outside the country.

I never thought I would see the day when I travelled the world and bumped into people from the US with canadian flags on their bags and admitting they prefer to pretend to be Canadians whilst abroad

 

[latent aaaack]

Why do you think people abroad loved Bill Clinton and his policies but view Hillary Clinton as more of the same in line with GWB?

My tuppence worth as a pro american abroad who sees more and more people turning from the US due to GWB and recent policies abroad

The US world image is pretty much rock bottom even with historical allies.

The majority of this is due to GWB

You need someone like Obama as a sea change to try to win back this ground especially with the re-emergence of Russia as a main player again and with China as strong as they are. If Clinton or McCain get in (more McCain IMO) this chance will be lost and a lot of outsider will see nothing changing

I do not necessarily believe he has all the answers or experience needed or the policies but I think he would restore some sort of trust in the american voting public as seen from outside the country.

I never thought I would see the day when I travelled the world and bumped into people from the US with canadian flags on their bags and admitting they prefer to pretend to be Canadians whilst abroad

 

[funk de fino]

Why do you think people abroad loved Bill Clinton and his policies but view Hillary Clinton as more of the same in line with GWB?

I dont think they view anyone on the same level as GWB. Bill was liked overseas in the main but in the end he became a laughing stock over lies and the sex scandal. Clinton resisted getting involved in the Balkan ground war and this was pretty unpopular over here. I think a vote for Obama may show a movement away from the old routine if you know what I mean.

Hilary comes across as very unlikeable and slightly annoying and seems to have had a pretty poor campaign. Not the thing she should be judged on I admit but it will happen all the same.

A lot of people over here are already saying the US electorate will never make a black man president, it would be good if they could be proven wrong IMO.

 

[Elind]

My tuppence worth as a pro american abroad who sees more and more people turning from the US due to GWB and recent policies abroad

The US world image is pretty much rock bottom even with historical allies.

The majority of this is due to GWB

You need someone like Obama as a sea change to try to win back this ground especially with the re-emergence of Russia as a main player again and with China as strong as they are. If Clinton or McCain get in (more McCain IMO) this chance will be lost and a lot of outsider will see nothing changing

I do not necessarily believe he has all the answers or experience needed or the policies but I think he would restore some sort of trust in the american voting public as seen from outside the country.

I never thought I would see the day when I travelled the world and bumped into people from the US with canadian flags on their bags and admitting they prefer to pretend to be Canadians whilst abroad

I'm older than you it would seem. I lived in Europe in my youth and I clearly remember how it was cool and politically correct to look down on the USA, and in those days with socialists and communists thinking they had all the answers, the USA was the boogey man too.

The one that can is always resented by those who can't, and that has nothing to do with GWB, although he doesn't help for sure.

Le plus ca change......

 

[funk de fino]

I'm older than you it would seem. I lived in Europe in my youth and I clearly remember how it was cool and politically correct to look down on the USA, and in those days with socialists and communists thinking they had all the answers, the USA was the boogey man too.

The one that can is always resented by those who can't, and that has nothing to do with GWB, although he doesn't help for sure.

Le plus ca change......

I think you may be mistaken on the age thing, I am not a kid (unfortunately). After the war here there was great empathy with the USA. They were our allies and pretty much saved our butt. The big thing here was to look at how great America was, how big everything was, how cool it was etc etc. I grew up next to an American base and went to school with many US kids. It is very different to say there was some lefty snobbery against the US than to judge the overall feeling towards the US from the general population.

The difference is nowadays there is a real dislike and hatred, not snobbery, this is mostly due to GWB and the recent foreign policies, like it or not.

When did you live over here and where?

I have been here all my days I think I have a better handle on how it has changed over the years than you IMHO

 

[Elind]

If Clinton or McCain get in (more McCain IMO) this chance will be lost and a lot of outsider will see nothing changing

I do not necessarily believe he has all the answers or experience needed or the policies but I think he would restore some sort of trust in the american voting public as seen from outside the country.

I never thought I would see the day when I travelled the world and bumped into people from the US with canadian flags on their bags and admitting they prefer to pretend to be Canadians whilst abroad{/quote]

I think you may be mistaken on the age thing, I am not a kid (unfortunately). After the war here there was great empathy with the USA. They were our allies and pretty much saved our butt. The big thing here was to look at how great America was, how big everything was, how cool it was etc etc. I grew up next to an American base and went to school with many US kids. It is very different to say there was some lefty snobbery against the US than to judge the overall feeling towards the US from the general population.

The difference is nowadays there is a real dislike and hatred, not snobbery, this is mostly due to GWB and the recent foreign policies, like it or not.

When did you live over here and where?

I have been here all my days I think I have a better handle on how it has changed over the years than you IMHO

Ok. Sorry about the assumption. I was thinking back to about the 60's.

Perceptions differ with different people, but what I remember was not simple snobbery, although that is what political beliefs often turn into; but one thing that has changed is how we communicate and how the morons of the world have been given voice that they never had.

The US was the big bad bully during Vietnam, when it was effectively at war against China and the USSR. It had no support from Europe then and lost, along with the Vietnamese, that battle. I don't remember much support, although that was really before my time, from Europe against the Chinese and USSR again, in Korea, which left North Korea the psychopathic territory it is now. I remember the UK labor party being damned close to unilateral disarmament and putting itself under the protection, heel, of the USSR.

The USA was always the bad one then, and we had famously popular books like "The Ugly American". Remember that?

The truth is that Europe, being the only potential world power other than China, and perhaps in a while again, Russia, has never been capable or willing to do anything significant that reeks of unpleasantness and is not immediately and obviously self serving. Militarily it has no global capacity to speak of, so instead it sees the world in terms of being nice and paying off enemies, and criticize the US whenever it does something differently. Never mind Iraq, think Nato's apparently misgivings towards any stamina in Afghanistan.

As to Americans who pretend to be Canadians....I hold them in contempt, and they are represented by a few here on this forum, who hate the US and pretend they do so because of a temporary klutz like GWB.

I have traveled plenty the past few years, and don't pretend to be anything but an American, without problem.

Obama talks of nothing but change, hope and whatever, as if that alone has anything to do with reality. He seems to think he can turn fundamental cultural enemies or, for that matter, just competitors into sincere allies just by being nicer than GWB. I think that's crap.

As to where have I lived aside from the USA. During some 30 years, the UK, Spain, Sweden, France, Switzerland, Kuwait, Saudi and a couple of other places. Plenty of nice people in all those places, and plenty of jerks too (note, I include the US)

One truth I do find, and believe is universal, is that being respected while being disliked is a hell of a lot better than being liked and not respected.

 

[funk de fino]

A lot of the vietnam thing was the hippy thing also though. The UK have alwas been staunch allies to the US even when it costs us friends amongst out european cousins.

The US was no the only country who fought in Korea so I do not know where you are going there?

The Labour party policy would have been because they were the govt of the day. We do not have to keep nuclear arms to appease america as we do not have to have the same enemies as america if we do not want to.

Why should we jump to do something unpelasant just because the US thinks this is the way to do business? We have little cohesion miltarily but we are still courted by the US like a lady of the street raising her skirt to passers by whenever an idiot like GWB wants to make his mark on the world.

The UK cannot keep two conflicts going at once. The armed forces are at breaking point. The Iraq war was a big mistake. The aims were good, getting rid of Saddam was good but it was not viable to conduct these two operations together effectively. Before you think I am some pacifist, I served in the first Gulf war which is when we should have dealt with Saddam. Guess who backed down then? Not us, we wanted to carry on, but the US were in command. GWB then had to rush into tidyingup his daddys mess instead of concentrating on the real problem of Afghanistan.

Saddam was neutered, he couldnt fart without getting juped on and while I felt for a lot of the Iraqi people who I generally found to be good people, he should have been left till Afghanistan was sorted.

The americans who pretend to be canadian do not do it becaue they hate America, your views are too polarised to be unbiased on this it seems. They are because of safety issues.

As for being respected. The US were respected and generally liked. Now they are disliked or even hated and not respected in general, even by historical allies. Thye are looked at as bullies led by an incompetant, who was not only voted in once but twice.

What I see from way over here and also during my many worldly travels is that Obama is seen as a change for the better. It may be he is not and it may be he is not up to it but him getting in will change perceptions not just with enemies but with former allies.

Look at it as window dressing if you like. The Tory govt said many simliar things about Tony Blair yet he got Labour elected and became arguably the greatest PM we have had post war. The one thing that in the end cost him his place in history as the above is the lap dog approach with GWB. (I am not a Labour supporter BTW)

 

[Elind]

A lot of the vietnam thing was the hippy thing also though.

That's not exactly how I would describe it, nor do I understand what your label means to you in this context. Is that what is sometimes called Moonbats todays?

The UK have alwas been staunch allies to the US even when it costs us friends amongst out european cousins.

True, but why do you call fickle acquaintances friends?

The US was no the only country who fought in Korea so I do not know where you are going there?

The US was the only country that had any significant forces there, in spite of the "support" of the UN. That is not to say that those others who did serve didn't do so honorably, but the point is, as usual, the rest of the world can't do squat without the US, even when they actually agree there are bad people who need to be taken care of. You would be speaking fluent German by now, if not for the same reason.

The Labour party policy would have been because they were the govt of the day. We do not have to keep nuclear arms to appease america as we do not have to have the same enemies as america if we do not want to.

Were you one of those then who would have favored going over to the USSR side? Do you really think that you can pick and choose your ENEMIES? For that matter, do you think you can just6 pick out the friends you want, and voila, c'est fait?

Why should we jump to do something unpelasant just because the US thinks this is the way to do business? We have little cohesion miltarily but we are still courted by the US like a lady of the street raising her skirt to passers by whenever an idiot like GWB wants to make his mark on the world.

Huhh? So you don't like GWB, in particular because he took out one of the most despicable dictatorships on the planet (whether or not he did it well), and you find that logically relates to not liking America and what it has stood for and still does?

The UK cannot keep two conflicts going at once. The armed forces are at breaking point. The Iraq war was a big mistake. The aims were good, getting rid of Saddam was good but it was not viable to conduct these two operations together effectively. Before you think I am some pacifist, I served in the first Gulf war which is when we should have dealt with Saddam. Guess who backed down then? Not us, we wanted to carry on, but the US were in command. GWB then had to rush into tidyingup his daddys mess instead of concentrating on the real problem of Afghanistan.

I agree that the first war should have finished Saddam, but you may not have had access to all the same perspectives that we had from our armchairs. The truth is that the biggest mistake the US made then was listening too much to the rest of the world, including the Arab world, and certainly to many Americans too. Now everyone, you think, hates Americans because they don't listen well enough. They listened then, and look where that got us.

Saddam was neutered, he couldnt fart without getting juped on and while I felt for a lot of the Iraqi people who I generally found to be good people, he should have been left till Afghanistan was sorted.

Sorry, no offense, but that is rubbish. He had billions in "illegal" income. Billions to build palaces and bribe governments and have an excuse to make his people seem to be suffereing at the hands of, guess who. Sanctions would not have lasted much longer, and we would be back past square one by now.

The americans who pretend to be canadian do not do it becaue they hate America, your views are too polarised to be unbiased on this it seems. They are because of safety issues.

Sorry, but they should stay home in bed. Safety issues where? In the Muslim no-go areas of the UK

As for being respected. The US were respected and generally liked. Now they are disliked or even hated and not respected in general, even by historical allies. Thye are looked at as bullies led by an incompetant, who was not only voted in once but twice.

As I said, fickle friends.

What I see from way over here and also during my many worldly travels is that Obama is seen as a change for the better. It may be he is not and it may be he is not up to it but him getting in will change perceptions not just with enemies but with former allies.

See, you said it too. Change for The Better. That's going to be really important to bear in mind when it actually comes down to doing something.

Look at it as window dressing if you like. The Tory govt said many simliar things about Tony Blair yet he got Labour elected and became arguably the greatest PM we have had post war. The one thing that in the end cost him his place in history as the above is the lap dog approach with GWB. (I am not a Labour supporter BTW)

I never understood how someone so much smarter than GWB could also be a Jesus freak. But a friend of the US he was, however I have trouble understanding how anyone that follows, or simply agrees with, someone much larger can ever avoid the slur of "lapdog" from the little minds.

 

[funk de fino]

That's not exactly how I would describe it, nor do I understand what your label means to you in this context. Is that what is sometimes called Moonbats todays?

What happened in the 60's culturally wise?

True, but why do you call fickle acquaintances friends?

They are neighbours we have been closer to them longer than america has been in existence. Remember where you came from. We are related to and descended from a lot of european races. You can choose your friends but not your family.

The US was the only country that had any significant forces there, in spite of the "support" of the UN. That is not to say that those others who did serve didn't do so honorably, but the point is, as usual, the rest of the world can't do squat without the US, even when they actually agree there are bad people who need to be taken care of.

Now you move the goalposts? There were 21 countries as well as the US in the Korea war. Lots of people died from those countries. You dismiss this with a wave of the hand and say you remember little support from Europe?

63,000 British troops went to Korea. Do you realise what percentage of our forces that really is?

Why were the US fighting in Vietnam?

We acted agains the serbs in europe because of ethnic cleansing yet the UK had to literally beg Clinton to support the ground war? Hypocritical much?

You would be speaking fluent German by now, if not for the same reason.

Now you throw out a cheap insult about something I have already credited the US for. Stop acting like a child. This is an adult discussion.

Were you one of those then who would have favored going over to the USSR side? Do you really think that you can pick and choose your ENEMIES? For that matter, do you think you can just6 pick out the friends you want, and voila, c'est fait?

WTF are you on about? Just because we did not have nukes did not mean we would align outrselves with the USSR. Whta about all the other European countries with no nukes and who are neutral? Were they invaded?

Over here it is not just if you are not right wing you are a raving commie.

Friends can disagree sometimes.

Huhh? So you don't like GWB, in particular because he took out one of the most despicable dictatorships on the planet (whether or not he did it well), and you find that logically relates to not liking America and what it has stood for and still does?

What does the US stand for now that Bush runs around the world playing policemen when it suits them?

What about all the other despicibale dictatorships around the world? Why are they quick to rush into Iraq but not the others? Why specifically Iraq?

America is disliked, not respected and in a lot of cases hated and not just by muslims but by people from historical allies. Now what has caused this? (Not me remember, I work for an america company, I go to america a lot, I grew up with lots of US citizens, my mother worked for the CS on an americam base for 18 years)

You are attacking me for telling you how the US is perceived now instead of addressing why you think this may be.

I agree that the first war should have finished Saddam, but you may not have had access to all the same perspectives that we had from our armchairs. The truth is that the biggest mistake the US made then was listening too much to the rest of the world, including the Arab world, and certainly to many Americans too. Now everyone, you think, hates Americans because they don't listen well enough. They listened then, and look where that got us.

How did not finishing Saddam actually affect the US? If you had listened to the muslims when they said to get out of saudi holy lands then you may not have had such trouble with our muslim brothers. You did not listen and could not see the problems it may cause.

Sorry, no offense, but that is rubbish. He had billions in "illegal" income. Billions to build palaces and bribe governments and have an excuse to make his people seem to be suffereing at the hands of, guess who. Sanctions would not have lasted much longer, and we would be back past square one by now.

So what if he had billions? He could not fly aircraft. He could not move out of the country. He could not attack his neighbours. He could not hurt the US. If the treatment of his people is a problem then why are the US not in Burma at the moment? Or other countries where dictators are running riot?

Like Zimbabwe?

There is only one reason Bush rushed into a two front war and it was to clean up his dads mess. It has backfired spectacularly.

Sorry, but they should stay home in bed. Safety issues where? In the Muslim no-go areas of the UK

Another childish insult during an adult conversation. You show your true colours now skip. (note how I spelled colours)

As I said, fickle friends.

A country who will vote in Bush not once but twice could be described as a little more than fickle but I would not stoop to your level.

See, you said it too. Change for The Better. That's going to be really important to bear in mind when it actually comes down to doing something.

As I said he may not be up to it. It may not be a change for the better. I said it will be SEEN as a change for the better. The only way is up at the moment.

I never understood how someone so much smarter than GWB could also be a Jesus freak. But a friend of the US he was, however I have trouble understanding how anyone that follows, or simply agrees with, someone much larger can ever avoid the slur of "lapdog" from the little minds.

I am an atheist so I do not hold Blairs beliefs against him. He went against the people on Iraq, he went against a lot of his own government on Iraq, he went against the UN on Iraq. He went cause GWB said so when we did not have the resources to support the Iraq thing. The Uk govt of the time were not seen as lapdogs during my time in the first gulf war.

What was the difference between the two?

As I said I am not anti US. I do not like Bush at all but this does nothing for my take on America or Americans. I was giving people a look at the perception of the US on the world stage at the moment. If you choose to use this to insult me and fellow world citizens then go right ahead. It only drives them further away.

 

[Elind]

What happened in the 60's culturally wise?

Moonbats then were called Hippies. Culturally wise it's still deja vue.

They are neighbours we have been closer to them longer than america has been in existence. Remember where you came from. We are related to and descended from a lot of european races. You can choose your friends but not your family.

Historically your family has probably more descendants in the US, than, say, Germany or France. You can't simply choose your friends, my friend. You develop them for many reasons, and your family; well that is a matter of perspective.

Now you move the goalposts? There were 21 countries as well as the US in the Korea war. Lots of people died from those countries. You dismiss this with a wave of the hand and say you remember little support from Europe?

Actually, my quick Google says there were 15 nations. Most were minor support and logistics. Hospitals or naval ships. There were some 63,000 UK troops total (not at one time) and I believe well over 1.5 million US in total.

63,000 British troops went to Korea.
Do you realise what percentage of our forces that really is?

I don't wish to disparage that sacarifice, but have you thought to compare the percentages relative to national populations?

Why were the US fighting in Vietnam?

Is that a rhetorical question?

We acted agains the serbs in europe because of ethnic cleansing yet the UK had to literally beg Clinton to support the ground war? Hypocritical much?

Yes, there was a time when the US was reluctant to be the world's policeman, again. You give it crap for not being fast enough with the bombs then and too quick in Iraq. Sounds like the usual crap to me.

Now you throw out a cheap insult about something I have already credited the US for. Stop acting like a child. This is an adult discussion.

I was simply being critical. Your comment is juvenile.

WTF are you on about? Just because we did not have nukes did not mean we would align outrselves with the USSR. Whta about all the other European countries with no nukes and who are neutral? Were they invaded?

That is ridiculous. That was at the height of the Cold War. If your understanding of what that entailed is so simplistic, we have little to debate.

Over here it is not just if you are not right wing you are a raving commie.

I did not say that, but commies aplenty you had in those days, and I didn't get laid by several of them because I wasn't politically correct enough.

What does the US stand for now that Bush runs around the world playing policemen when it suits them?

But when you need to call 911, who're you gonna call. Beijing or Moscow?

What about all the other despicibale dictatorships around the world? Why are they quick to rush into Iraq but not the others? Why specifically Iraq?

Because of circumstances that obviously escape you. What are you suggesting? That it was the best place to bomb at the time and something had to be found?

America is disliked, not respected and in a lot of cases hated and not just by muslims but by people from historical allies. Now what has caused this? (Not me remember, I work for an america company, I go to america a lot, I grew up with lots of US citizens, my mother worked for the CS on an americam base for 18 years)

Can I remind you that a short while ago you expressed the opinion that the world "begged" the US to finish the first gulf war by finishing Saddam?

I don't think you have that right, but I'd like to ask you what you think would have been different had they done so?

Do you think that that the Iraqis (and mulsim fanatics) were somehow more civilized a few years ago and would have embraced civil behaviors differently then? Do you think the quagmire would have been different? The only issue that I see here is that GWB truly thought that Iraqis were a civilized culture. Wrong.

You are attacking me for telling you how the US is perceived now instead of addressing why you think this may be.

I'm telling you that you are one of those with the same perception. You can call it attack, or you can call it honest response. Your choice.

How did not finishing Saddam actually affect the US? If you had listened to the muslims when they said to get out of saudi holy lands then you may not have had such trouble with our muslim brothers. You did not listen and could not see the problems it may cause.

You truly disappoint me. So you are another one of those Islamists who don't recognize the existing, UN recognized, governments of this planet and you expect the United States of America to take it's orders from the likes of OBL, and tell the kings (or whatever) of Saudi and elsewhere to take a hike because your "brother" said to do so.

Tells me a lot of where you come from that does.

So what if he had billions? He could not fly aircraft. He could not move out of the country. He could not attack his neighbours. He could not hurt the US. If the treatment of his people is a problem then why are the US not in Burma at the moment? Or other countries where dictators are running riot?

I remember telling off some children, in Kuwait, about shooting at birds in the gardens nearby. They responded, "what does it matter if we kill some birds, there are people being killed everywhere all the time". You should look them up.

Like Zimbabwe?

There is only one reason Bush rushed into a two front war and it was to clean up his dads mess. It has backfired spectacularly.

Again, seems to me it was your fault for not making him get into the same mess 15 years earlier.

Another childish insult during an adult conversation. You show your true colours now skip. (note how I spelled colours)

You choose to insult my country initially, which is what started this. I'm attempting to explain that the rest of the planet would be in deep doodoo without the US in a good part of modern history, and that you have short memory and short understanding. You don't like this president anymore than I do, but you express that to the entire concept of the USA which you seem to think should be the lapdog of those who are only capable of being lapdogs. Does that hit home?

A country who will vote in Bush not once but twice could be described as a little more than fickle but I would not stoop to your level.

See what I mean? When you are in deep doodoo next time, do us a favour. Don't call.

As I said he may not be up to it. It may not be a change for the better. I said it will be SEEN as a change for the better. The only way is up at the moment.

Spoken like a true pessimist in the gutter.

I am an atheist so I do not hold Blairs beliefs against him. He went against the people on Iraq, he went against a lot of his own government on Iraq, he went against the UN on Iraq. He went cause GWB said so when we did not have the resources to support the Iraq thing. The Uk govt of the time were not seen as lapdogs during my time in the first gulf war.

Bull. You were the one one who wanted to finish it the first time. Think you would have been home by now if that had been the case?

As I said I am not anti US. I do not like Bush at all but this does nothing for my take on America or Americans. I was giving people a look at the perception of the US on the world stage at the moment. If you choose to use this to insult me and fellow world citizens then go right ahead. It only drives them further away.

I love it when people spout bull and then cry uncle when they get a response they don't like (do you understand the term "uncle"?).

 

[funk de fino]

You are either one of these guys who spils for a fight when there is not need or your lack of understanding is matched only by 911 truthers

Enjoy your place at the head of the "we are the best in the world like us or be against us crew"

Your posts astound me. Imagine if I really did not like the US like you keep trying to pin on me.

Maybe the status of the US is your penis extension instead of the sports car

Later skip

PS Guess where I am at the moment? Working in Siberia for my US company? Who's in the big bed now eh?

 

[Elind]

You are either one of these guys who spils for a fight when there is not need or your lack of understanding is matched only by 911 truthers

Enjoy your place at the head of the "we are the best in the world like us or be against us crew"

Your posts astound me. Imagine if I really did not like the US like you keep trying to pin on me.

Maybe the status of the US is your penis extension instead of the sports car

Later skip

PS Guess where I am at the moment? Working in Siberia for my US company? Who's in the big bed now eh?

Silly comments. The only thing that has any relevance was your comment to the effect that the US should have listened to the likes of Al Qaeda when they said the US should stay out of Muslim (Islamist?) countries. Obviously you consider they, the Islamists, are better representatives of their people than their recognized governments.

On the other hand, perhaps you are right, which is a piss poor rationale for expecting respect for your opinions.

You sound like an Islamist mole bragging about being on the inside.

 

[funk de fino]

Silly comments. The only thing that has any relevance was your comment to the effect that the US should have listened to the likes of Al Qaeda when they said the US should stay out of Muslim (Islamist?) countries. Obviously you consider they, the Islamists, are better representatives of their people than their recognized governments.

On the other hand, perhaps you are right, which is a piss poor rationale for expecting respect for your opinions.

You sound like an Islamist mole bragging about being on the inside.

And you sound like a generalising, insular, ego massaging, right wing bigot. You maybe are not but it certainly comes across as this.

I am a nationalist but not in the way you imagine. When you look at things in one dimension you will always be selling yourself short.

 

[Elind]

And you sound like a generalising, insular, ego massaging, right wing bigot. You maybe are not but it certainly comes across as this.

I am a nationalist but not in the way you imagine. When you look at things in one dimension you will always be selling yourself short.

We can have a try at simply being factual. You still avoid the issue of you saying we should listen to terrorist fanatics and try to accommodate them.

 

[funk de fino]

We can have a try at simply being factual. You still avoid the issue of you saying we should listen to terrorist fanatics and try to accommodate them.

Sorry pal, you started veering off the factual and into bigotted and insulting stuff.

You are trying to railroad me into your little box where if we dont agree with you we are against you.

Doesnt work like that pal, certainly not for adults anyway. Quite ironic after you trying to pin me being a youngster.

 

[Elind]

Sorry pal, you started veering off the factual and into bigotted and insulting stuff.

You are trying to railroad me into your little box where if we dont agree with you we are against you.

Doesnt work like that pal, certainly not for adults anyway. Quite ironic after you trying to pin me being a youngster.

Actually, I was simply making a defense of your attacks, which could be seen as insulting, with criticisms of my own, that you seem to think are insulting. Seems you can give but not take.

What I am interested in is what you think I am "bigoted" against?

How can I be railroading you into anything when all I am doing is asking you to explain your apparent sympathetic attitude towards the feelings of fanatical terrorists?

As to adult. That was my mistake, prompted by what seemed to be a disjointed argument. I apologize.

 

[Elind]

Bump:

Ignored again. Oh the pain.