Comment Re:Like my mamma always taught me (Score 1) 180
...sometimes all you have to do is eat the problem.
Tell that to the 99%.
Eat the Rich
...sometimes all you have to do is eat the problem.
Tell that to the 99%.
Eat the Rich
Yeah, except the one guy who was paid to read the summary didn't.
Maybe he is from Baltimore and died several months ago? I heard they taught zombies to sign their names there.
Typical American - "You're not raising your children the way I think children should be raised, so you're wrong!"
At least, it sure as hell seems that way.
That is a human problem, not an American problem. Everybody on this planet is sure their way of life is the correct way. That is why everybody laughs at the fat, dumb, lazy, violent, American kids. Because they have different priorities.
Well, then that's comforting... or something....
Glad I could be there for ya, bro.
Typical American - "You're not raising your children the way I think children should be raised, so you're wrong!"
At least, it sure as hell seems that way.
That is a human problem, not an American problem. Everybody on this planet is sure their way of life is the correct way. That is why everybody laughs at the fat, dumb, lazy, violent, American kids. Because they have different priorities.
Yea, except the kid doesn't "decide" to go fight a war. The politician decides to fight a war, then he sends the poor who had little choice but join the military [while hoping politicians wouldn't be douche bags].
So when that kid IS the politician? Or when that kid is deciding which politician to vote for? I'm not saying those 2 kids can change Sweden by themselves, I'm saying it is a step in the right direction. 2 of their voters are now better informed as to the real effects of war. They now know that war is not a body count, or an economic hit, or tunnels destroyed, or a political issue, or a "better donate to the red cross" reminder, or a "them" problem. Human beings, real people that these 2 kids have spoken with, are now imprinted in their brains. So when faced with a decision of whether or not to vote for something that pushes for war, they will see those faces. They will hear their names, and they will know that if they support a war it will mean that a person will suffer for it, so that suffering should be worth whatever it is they want from the war.
I've heard that a few times over the years. Americans don't know what war is like because we've never had to suffer it personally. Our soldiers always go somewhere else to fight.
About 13% of Americans are immigrants, many from war-ravaged countrires.
What is "many"? 2/3 of all immigrants to the US come from Mexico, East Asia, & Europe... areas not exactly known for being war-torn atm.
How many of that "many" are US Representatives with the power to vote to go to war? How many of that "many" can be POTUS, thus giving them the power to start a "military operation"? If you can find 4 in Congress, that would mean about 1% of the population has a representative with personal experience. Even if you do, I say 1% still means your point absolutely irrelevant.... unless you want to get into an anti-occupy wall street "we are the 1%" demonstration.
They know exactly what war is. Probably better than you do.
Glad you agree with me.
Not quite. You're making the fundamental mistake of attributing the suffering to war.
Yea, I'm making a fundamental mistake of attributing suffering with war. I'm sorry, what color is the sky on your planet? War brings suffering. That is a not even remotely debatable. Or by "the suffering", do you mean all suffering? If so, then you're mistaken about what I am mistaking.
War comes about from a refusal to settle disagreements amicably. That almost never happens except when what one side is arguing for is considered to be worse than war by the other side.
Well, duh. Why exactly are you responding to my post again? It looked like you were going to disagree with me by citing immigration, but failed, and then paraphrased what I said, and now you're going off on what starts wars which completely misses my point. I'm talking about the decision making process. If you don't understand the consequences of a decision, then your decision making process is flawed. If you experience war first hand by personally seeing the destruction and suffering it brings, you are better informed as to whether or not that suffering is worth getting whatever it is you think you'll get from a war.
I've heard that a few times over the years. Americans don't know what war is like because we've never had to suffer it personally.
Yeah, people forget that little skirmish 1861-1865 which killed 600,000 soldiers, and devastated large regions.
Granted, none of us were alive back then. But the U.S. has certainly experienced war in our country.
Nobody can forget the civil war, because nobody was there. You read about it. Everybody has read about war, or played war, or heard about war, or Monday morning quarterbacked a war. I'm talking about experienced war. Reading about war makes it no more a threat to you and your loved ones or way of life than Pete's Dragon. It is just a story. You imagine what its like. Just like people imagine what they'd do in a robbery situation. People often imagine themselves to be heroes (or cowards); only to find out they're the exact opposite when the real time comes. All because they honestly have no idea about the true effects a robbery (or war) can have on their (or others) psyche. It is just a story until it happens.
Experience, and only experience, in anything from war to sex, can truly make you appreciate the complexities and ramifications of it. No amount of teaching or reading can prepare you for what is to come because so much of us is based on emotions and remembering emotions. HIV is such a problem because nobody ever thought it would happen to them. It was something you read about, your neighbor's cousin's father's nephew's formerly gay roommate had it once. Magic Johnson cured himself of it, right? And yet not a single person, dying, confined to a bed, coughing up a lung ever said, "everybody should have unprotected sex."
Or for a computer analogy, I'd trust a 20 year experienced sysadmin with a record of accomplishments and no schooling over a fresh college graduate; just as I'd trust these two kids understand the effects of war over any American (or Swede) that merely read about the Civil War (Or WWII) and thought, "Ya, I know what is going on; start the airstrikes!"
So, I say this sounds like a perfect education. You kids like playing war? Lets go see what war really is because games & stories don't do it justice. Look it in the eyes and you won't treat it like a game anymore.
When they're adults, these kids will be able to look back and use this experience to make an informed decision on whether or not to fight in whatever conflict their country gets into. Sweden's next generation of decision makers will be better equipped because of the presence of these kid's experience.
I've seen Israel do things for the benefit of Palestinian citizens that Hamas refuses to do.
Indeed, like when Israel built Gaza's first and only airport in the late 90's only to have it demolished by Hamas 4 years later. Oh! right it was the other way around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y...
But of course that is not a bad thing as the airport now is a valuable resource for hard to get by construction materials for the rebuilding of other structures.
Huh, I don't see Hamas mentioned on that page at all. Will you be fixing that soon so your post can be "accurate"?
I would think the more apt analogy is that you sold me unlimited access to your fridge (bandwidth) but Netflix (content provider) is only restocking at a rate of one six-pack per week. IOW, Netflix is the one failing to have peerage agreements in place to honor their downstream sales commitments.
So if a city promises "With this new tax, you will have perfect roads throughout the city!", and you pay the tax, but the roads aren't there, you blame Ford for not ensuring the roads are available?
That makes sense to you?
Communism works incredibly well but only in very small groups where pooled resources are necessary for survival.
Government works incredibly well, but only in very small groups.
tiftfy.
If you sincerely believe this
Believe what? That both sides are dysfunctional?
then it's going to be very difficult to change your mind since you will weight the facts supporting your belief heavily while discounting facts contrary to your beliefs.
Welcome to the world of humanity, where everybody does exactly that, including you. Now, of course, we haven't been talking long enough to even bring this up so I'm not sure why you did.
So I'm done. You asked- and I gave you details. Direct quotes from the leader of the house and senate republicans stating they were going to vote no to everything.
You didn't cover the Ds voting No on every R sponsored bill. But, you're done and already assuming that I can't think objectively on this topic. So now we're both done.
Then suddenly the republicans started saying no to everything. They even asked for "X" and when offered "X", they STILL said "no".
See, that is what I'm talking about. Do you have an example of "X"? I'm guessing no. Because nobody would ever come back and offer the same thing that was originally presented. They offer something slightly different. So you're just repeating polarized talking points. As long as the masses are believing Obama's talking points (GOP is bad), the Democrats have no incentive to compromise. They can just point fingers and wait until they have a super majority.
Looking at the voting history of Congress, I see the same basic thing regardless of which bill I look at. If the sponsor has a D on their name, all the "R"s vote no. If the sponsor has an R on their name, all the "D"s vote no. Occasionally about 1/2 of one side votes with the other. Overall, their records appear to be the same.
You skipped a prez, hoss......GWB, the president who ran up that 8 trillion to bail out his Wall Street Buddies.....
Where did Obama's bailout go? I recall getting a check from Bush's IRS. Haven't seen one from Obama's though...
I don't think I'm one of Bush's Wall Street Buddies...
He's made a lot of "small" liberal progress on over a hundred issues but his hands are tied by the party of "no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO NO no no no!"
I still don't get this name calling. Aren't they different parties? Don't they have different views on how to do things? Haven't they always opposed each other?
Aren't the Democrats voting "No" as well on Republican led initiatives?
In short, why is it that side's fault that Congress can't get anything passed? Do you think blaming them makes the process better?
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.
