Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice [Archive] - Beastie Boys Message Board

Paul Nice

11-23-2004, 09:34 AM

Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice
Matthias Döpfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in the daily WELT against the cowardice of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. Hartmut Lau translated the article for us.

Europe – Thy Name is Cowardice

Commentary by Mathias Döpfner

A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote "Europe – your family name is appeasement." It’s a phrase you can’t get out of your head because it’s so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam’s torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century—a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society’s values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary—we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we’re so moral? I fear it’s more because we’re so materialistic.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy—because everything is at stake.

While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive. We’d rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor’s house. Europe, thy name is cowardice. (emphasis added)

Matthias Döpfner has done it before - criticizing the spineless reaction of the European political elites to the dangers of Islamic terror.

He is by far the most powerful voice in the German media against the reappearance of the rotten European appeasement policies of the 20th century.

Ace42

11-23-2004, 09:45 AM

Like the cowardice of appeasment in Northern Ireland, which has managed to secure appologies for civillian casualties caused by the IRA, and has made all of the UK considerably safer.

Well bugger me if it don't darn work a treat.

The UK government, appease the Irish, they should've invaded the WHOLE COUNTRY. If the Irish aren't for us, they are against us. There are NO CITIZENS IN DUBLIN, ONLY TERRORISTS!

And then of course, there is Suez, where the UK, French and Israelis were against the Egyptian dictator securing the canal region. The US was the country that favoured appeasement, and ordered that the UN oblige a full withdrawl from the allied forces.

But no, Dwight D Eisnehower WASN'T the one who said:

"We believe these actions to have been taken in error, for we do not accept the use of force as a wise or proper instrument for the settlement of international disputes." (Washington, D.C., October 31, 1956)"

The topic should be "America, thy name is double-standards"

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 09:46 AM

Europe hasn't had any substantial world power in over 50 years....

appeasment/cowardice is sort of survival technique at this point.
it's sad, but it's to be expected.

if you have no muscle, you can't swing your fists.....just play the wall and back the winner.

and the europeans, in order to justify this behavior, flip the script and attack the U.S. as "war mongering imperialists" (see ACe and the other euro-liberal elite on this board). they attack american's values, claiming it is WE who have our heads in the sand, ect.

infidel

11-23-2004, 10:29 AM

To compare Hitler and the Jews to the "Islamic problem" is asinine.
The Muslim world's anti-western stance isn't defined by borders, leaders or armies, it's an ideology.
CIA research shows that 80% of the 4 billion Muslims in the world believe bin Laden's philosophy to be true, even though the vast majority don't support terrorism or violence.
All they really want is to left alone.

phinkasaurus

11-23-2004, 10:31 AM

if you go around fighting and imposing your will and desires with violence, all you get in return is violence. The U.S. does this. We are an interconnected world now, like it or not, and no country can act out of it's own self interest without taking into account the ramifications and consequences of it's actions. We can see the results all around us now.

Do you think the "appeasing europeans" continued their track record by not standing up to the war mongering u.s., and instead, vocally supported or by not objecting, silently supported their war moves?

infidel

11-23-2004, 10:32 AM

Europe hasn't had any substantial world power in over 50 years...France has nukes and ICBMs capable of reaching anywhere in the world.
What more power do you want?

Ali

11-23-2004, 10:44 AM

Europe hasn't had any substantial world power in over 50 years.....

Except that the € is kicking the $'s butt and hauling up on the £. Europe doesn't have the deficit that you do, either.

appeasment/cowardice is sort of survival technique at this point.
it's sad, but it's to be expected.
Thanks for all the help in Ivory Coast (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22404011.htm). France is single-handedly dealing with the problems there, without whinging for help from the rest of the world. The French are fighting Ivorians who have (had ;) )fucking aircraft and are getting no help from the population. You guys are fighting people with the minimum of weaponry and are losing. And for what? Cocoa?

An American (http://www.christianpost.com/dbase/church/1652/section/1.htm) was killed there and your cowardly fucking government does nothing (even Israel have agreed to stop selling them weapons!)

if you have no muscle, you can't swing your fists.....just play the wall and back the winner. Which winner? Gbagbo or Ouattara. Europe has plenty of muscle, buddy, we just know when to flex, unlike you stupid gung-ho fukwits who rush in blindly swinging giant fists, destroying everything in your path while being attacked from all quaters by much smaller, but far more nimble foe, eventually finding yourself deep behind enemy lines, exhausted, without any backup. Bravery? Stupidity!

and the europeans, in order to justify this behavior, flip the script and attack the U.S. as "war mongering imperialists" (see ACe and the other euro-liberal elite on this board). they attack american's values, claiming it is WE who have our heads in the sand, ect Ace is a shithead who knows fukall. He does not speak for nor represent Europe, he is British and therefore one of yours.

You're an even bigger shithead. You know absolutely nothing, yet you feel the right to dis Europe. Your head's not in the sand, it's up your ass, cretin.

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 11:06 AM

France has nukes and ICBMs capable of reaching anywhere in the world.
What more power do you want?

Please.....France?
i'm not even gonna argue with you on that......

if you have nukes, that makes you a world power? period?

you know the point i'm making......

France isn't a factor in......well......anything.

(yeah, i know...."typical ignorant american sentiment with no substantial backing" .....fuck, do you want to stop working and spend 3 hours finding blog after blog concerning France's current limited role in world events?)

Ali

11-23-2004, 11:12 AM

Please.....France?
i'm not even gonna argue with you on that......

'cos you can't, fukwit.

if you have nukes, that makes you a world power? period? You seem to think so.

you know the point i'm making...... that you know where the . key is?

France isn't a factor in......well......anything. Dream on.

(yeah, i know...."typical ignorant american sentiment with no substantial backing" .....fuck, do you want to stop working and spend 3 hours finding blog after blog concerning France's current limited role in world events?) Look anywhere any you'll see France in the Limelight.

Whois

11-23-2004, 11:21 AM

if you have nukes, that makes you a world power? period?

Let's see, who are the five permanent members of the Security Counsel?

People's Republic of China
France
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
United States

Nukes certainly help...

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 11:22 AM

Except that the € is kicking the $'s butt and hauling up on the £. Europe doesn't have the deficit that you do, either.

it flows with the tide, when you take it upon yourself to make regime changes in the world, you take some lumps.
if you are going to sit there and France is in the same universe as america as far as financial stability and global fiscal power....
really now.....

Thanks for all the help in Ivory Coast (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L22404011.htm).

thanks for the help in WWI and WWII....
oh wait......we bailed you out. never mind.

hey, you don't wanna step in with IRAQ, war on terror, ect.....
fine, then deal with your own shit.

don't come beggin for a piece of the pie when the oil starts flowing and industry starts to slowly increase and take hold....

not that haven't already attempted to make a claim........
vultures.

Europe has plenty of muscle, buddy, we just know when to flex, unlike you stupid gung-ho fukwits who rush in blindly swinging giant fists, destroying everything in your path while being attacked from all quaters by much smaller, but far more nimble foe, eventually finding yourself deep behind enemy lines, exhausted, without any backup. Bravery? Stupidity!

like in WWI and WWII when we saved your country from-....
yeah......

hey, i ain't proud of how this war was conducted at all.
It was under false pretenses, and poorly planned out.
we needed more support......we didn't get it. bush fucked that up.
he rushed in......he fucked that up.
we elected him.....again.......WE fucked that up.
i'm not gonna argue that.

Ace is a shithead who knows fukall. He does not speak for nor represent Europe, he is British and therefore one of yours.

we don't want him.

You're an even bigger shithead. You know absolutely nothing, yet you feel the right to dis Europe. Your head's not in the sand, it's up your ass, cretin.
ouch......be nice.
you seem like a much more level headed guy than ACe......not looking to flame here.

look, you are french. you are european. it's natural to be defensive of you homeland.
my comments were hurtful.....sorry.
but you must understand my stance as well......
americans are looked at as shit right now by much of the world.
mostly from jealousy....and a plethora of other reasons.
it's not fair of me to lump you into one "cowardly euro" pack....as your sentiments may not be the same as the majority of europe.
just as it wouldn't be fair of you to lump me into this "war mongering, red neck hick, ignorant american" pack.

Jasonik

11-23-2004, 11:22 AM

Look anywhere any you'll see France in the Limelight.
This makes me smile, though I'm not sure why.

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 11:27 AM

Let's see, who are the five permanent members of the Security Counsel?

People's Republic of China
France
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
United States

Nukes certainly help...

ok, guys.....
state, in detail, your argument that France is on Par with the U.S (the only remaining superpower I believe now?) in shaping world policy on all levels.
please, by all means......convince me.
perhaps you can....
i will be open minded. i promise.

Whois

11-23-2004, 11:38 AM

phinkasaurus

11-23-2004, 11:42 AM

don't come beggin for a piece of the pie when the oil starts flowing and industry starts to slowly increase and take hold....
nice, at least you can agree with the reasons the U.S, went to war...

americans are looked at as shit right now by much of the world. mostly from jealousy....and a plethora of other reasons.
Are they jealous of the the bombs the U.S. drops on them or of the monetary support the U.S. gives to dictators or of the way the U.S. is above any and all treaties?

or maybe they're jealous of the total lack of respect the u.s. has for the entire world?

Qdrop, why did you vote for Kerry? You seem like a full on Bush supporter. Or do you suffer from the the "we must support our elected officials" syndrome?

infidel

11-23-2004, 11:54 AM

Whois

11-23-2004, 12:03 PM

When the UN Security Council was formed the factor that determined if countries were admitted is if they were a nuclear power...

As I understand it China wants to add India to the permanent list, but Pakistan (a PRC ally) is throwing a hissy fit.

Ali

11-23-2004, 12:03 PM

ok, guys.....
state, in detail, your argument that France is on Par with the U.S (the only remaining superpower I believe now?) in shaping world policy on all levels.
please, by all means......convince me.
perhaps you can....
i will be open minded. i promise. France helped veto the decision to invade Iraq, until hard evidence of WMD's appeared.

Pretty world-shaping, dontchathink?

France is a member of the European Union, which is growing each year. It takes 1 dollar gets you 0.76 euro. The EU is more than a match for the US and doesn't have the deficit problems that you do.

We have a huge Muslim population in France and no fear of terrorist attack (we learned our lesson in Algeria, don't fuck with Arabs, they are very, very hard to defeat). The French know only too well how savagely Arabic people can fight to defend their homeland, you are only just beginning to learn this, to your cost.

There is no Burger King in France.

And please, please please STFU about WWI and WWII. The US did fukall (sold steel to the Nazis) until most of the fighting had been done and came and mopped up at the end (and the Allies were more afraid of friendly fire from trigger-happy GI's than the Germans). Russia did more to defeat Germany than the US and you don't hear them going on and on about it.

Why does every Hawk on this board resort to bashing the French over WWII whenever the subject comes up? WHERE WERE YOU AT THE BEGINNING?

Echewta

11-23-2004, 12:07 PM

America is so wonderful and right because we have a military and use it?

The biggest problem is that this country lumped Iraq into the war on terror. Makes us look like simpletons.

Yea, Europe, you are nothing. EU? Pssh, we aint scared of that. With are growing in spending and trade, pffttt, go back to France where nothing ever happpens and nobody did anything in WWII and the U.S. had to do everything.

Some day I hope we find our honor and dignity again...

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 12:09 PM

Where did I claim that?

I simply replied to a statment of yours, please stop putting words in my mouth suckwad.

actually, you're right.......my bad....ummmmm......suckwad.

Whois

11-23-2004, 12:09 PM

I liek when people make sound arguments with back up evidence and then throw in gems like Suckwad, and Fuckwit...

Really drives the point home.

He is a suckwad...he's proven it over and over again.

Your point?

I really don't give a fuck.

Whois

11-23-2004, 12:10 PM

actually, you're right.......my bad....ummmmm......suckwad.

Hey, at least I removed you from ignore (against my better judgement), why aren't you happy?

...because you like playing the martyr.

"Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?" - Basil Faulty

Ali

11-23-2004, 12:13 PM

Let's see, who are the five permanent members of the Security Counsel?

People's Republic of China
France
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
United States

Nukes certainly help... Does Israel (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Israel+Line/2004/Israel+Line+22-Nov-2004.htm) want to be a member, then? Pity they don't officially (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/057AA5F4-5D3C-4941-A654-719CB717A8D8.htm) have a Nuclear weapons program.

Whois

11-23-2004, 12:14 PM

actually that wasnt my point.

i just think resorting to name calling lowers you and deflates your argument. Have some respect for yourself and the subject matter.

You missed the point, this place has become a magnet for suckiness...I don't give a fuck anymore.

Ali

11-23-2004, 12:16 PM

You missed the point, this place has become a magnet for suckiness...I don't give a fuck anymore.

"suckiness"

is that a word?

it is now!

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 12:23 PM

nice, at least you can agree with the reasons the U.S, went to war...

sure, that is how nations obtain great power, and keep that power.
it's brutal, but ANY other nation (and i do mean ANY- france,italy, New Zealand) would do the same.
power is addictive. power is consuming. power always corrupts to a degree.

Are they jealous of the the bombs the U.S. drops on them or of the monetary support the U.S. gives to dictators or of the way the U.S. is above any and all treaties?

or maybe they're jealous of the total lack of respect the u.s. has for the entire world?

nope, just jealous of the power.

that's how the pecking order works.
we would do the same.
we used to be the same centuries ago.

Qdrop, why did you vote for Kerry? You seem like a full on Bush supporter. Or do you suffer from the the "we must support our elected officials" syndrome?

well, i'm not a democrat......i'm an independant, if you must label.
basically.....i see the world for what it is: Nature on the biggest scale.
i see actions as necessary or not necessary.....not moral or immoral.
i suppose, in that sense i can be seen as a NEO con hawk.
socially, i am very liberal in most matters....cept welfare and prison.
overall, i have a very hardline approach to things.....not idealistic ones.
what does a nation need to do to become powerful and stay powerful so that i can have a comfortable, wealthy, safe homeland.
do i want others worldwide to have these comforts.......of course.
would i be willing to part with much of my own to allow that?......nope.
and i would expect nothing less if the tables are reversed.

i voted for bush because he failed.....and do not like how he is handling our foriegn policies....they are not pragmatic.
i also fear Conservative dogmas and agenda on a social level.......

if i don't vote for third parties....i vote democrat in most cases.

personally, i think the idea of having parties is fucking stupid.
it's a "club house" mentallity.......

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 12:28 PM

Hey, at least I removed you from ignore (against my better judgement), why aren't you happy?

...because you like playing the martyr.

"Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?" - Basil Faulty

i didn't even know i was on yours......

but honestly.....thanks.
it shows you have some balls.......

and everyone loves a martydom party.... ;)

Ace42

11-23-2004, 12:29 PM

actually that wasnt my point.

i just think resorting to name calling lowers you and deflates your argument. Have some respect for yourself and the subject matter.

I tend not to insult myself or the subject manner, just the inbreds here who only just avoid being beneath the contempt I rain upon them.

Whois

11-23-2004, 12:30 PM

i didn't even know i was on yours......

but honestly.....thanks.
it shows you have some balls.......

and everyone loves a martydom party.... ;)

You're welcome.

p.s. Yob tvayu mat.

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 12:35 PM

You missed the point, this place has become a magnet for suckiness...I don't give a fuck anymore.

what the hell are you so angry about?

seriously.....hold on.
THIS IS A FUCKING BEASTIE BOYS MESSAGE BOARD!!
why do people get so emotional on these things.

message boards have no bearing on your life.....
they are realms of fantasy, were Geeks become gods.....
were the meek become bullies.....
that's why they are so infested with disenfranchised nerds and socially inept losers....
this is the only place where they can stake claim and feel strong....

let's be honest.....90% of ALL the arguments on these boards don't mean shit.
no one is arguing there principles on here...not really.
it's all just a big E-penis competition.....
who can come up with the best retorts and witty comebacks in efforts to humiliate their opponent in the eyes of thier fellow internet geeks.
who can pull the most blogs.
who can dominate......who can control the flow of he debate.
who's the funniest.

it's like everyone who come on these things becomes characatures of themselves....

Ali

11-23-2004, 12:37 PM

sure, that is how nations obtain great power, and keep that power.
it's brutal, but ANY other nation (and i do mean ANY- france,italy, New Zealand) would do the same. but they don't

power is addictive. power is consuming. power always corrupts to a degree.

i voted for bush because he failed.....and do not like how he is handling our foriegn policies....they are not pragmatic.
i also fear Conservative dogmas and agenda on a social level.......huh?

if i don't vote for third parties....i vote democrat in most cases.
huh???

personally, i think the idea of having parties is fucking stupid.
it's a "club house" mentallitythat's cos you never get invited ot any

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 12:40 PM

I tend not to insult myself or the subject manner, just the inbreds here who only just avoid being beneath the contempt I rain upon them.

^^ see, this is what i'm talking about.

ACE is probably 5'4"...135 lbs....very small penis.
bad with girls.....not many friends...
spends most of his time playing video games and getting yelled at by his mum for not doing something with his life.

but when he comes on here.....he's a "GOD"....he's "smarter" than everyone.
he "knows more", can defeat anyone....he has "all the facts".....everyone else is beneath him.
it's like his personal Matrix.......

pathetic.

phinkasaurus

11-23-2004, 01:09 PM

we used to be the same centuries ago.
the u.s. had legal slavery a little under 160 years ago, too. but things change.

what does a nation need to do to become powerful and stay powerful so that i can have a comfortable, wealthy, safe homeland.
do i want others worldwide to have these comforts.......of course.
would i be willing to part with much of my own to allow that?......nope.
and i would expect nothing less if the tables are reversed.

this is a very selfish statement. you say you want your nation to be the most powerful so that you can have a wealthy comfortable life. Then, of course you'd want everyone to have that too, but not if you have to give up anything? WTF?!?!?! Why can't you replace "nation" and "homeland" (both terms used to promote nationalist fueled hatred and facism) with the words "world" and "planet"? Do we really have to continue to divide ourselves?

Everyone can be comfortable and healthy and taken care of, but not from where we are now. We can't just bring the poorest countries up to the level of the wealthiest portions of the world. In the current system, those wealthy portions make their wealth off of the poorest.

If Bush failed you, and got us into a war under false pretenses (you agree to this?), why would you thn support him and his war? What would be the right pretenses?

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 01:12 PM

but they don't

cause they can't.

huh?

huh???

the hell is so baffling about that?

that's cos you never get invited ot any

cry for me.....*sniff*

Qdrop

11-23-2004, 01:26 PM

the u.s. had legal slavery a little under 160 years ago, too. but things change.

no shit. that's my point. dude, you totally missed it, read it again.

this is a very selfish statement. you say you want your nation to be the most powerful so that you can have a wealthy comfortable life. Then, of course you'd want everyone to have that too, but not if you have to give up anything? WTF?!?!?! Why can't you replace "nation" and "homeland" (both terms used to promote nationalist fueled hatred and facism) with the words "world" and "planet"? Do we really have to continue to divide ourselves?

i don't want that......
but i don't see it changing.
so get what you can.

Everyone can be comfortable and healthy and taken care of,

that's a nice story. tell me another one, mommy......one with a princess this time.

you will never obtain that equality.....even with war.
humans are NOT egiltarian.....no matter how much you wish we were.

If Bush failed you, and got us into a war under false pretenses (you agree to this?), why would you thn support him and his war? What would be the right pretenses?

i don't support him and this war.

the "right" pretenses (again with the morality) would be the pragmatic pretenses best suited to the U.S.'s well being.
which would be removing an evil, opressive dictator and his regime, and setting up a soviern, secular nation, with a capitalist, free market structure which would provide beneficial and profitable trade/industry agreements with the U.S. and our financial allies- as well as the natives of that nation (iraq).
we would do this with the support and blessing of the greater world, as many of them could benifit as well. no false pretenses would be given (WMD's, false terrorist connections, ect)
the people of that country could benefit from the free capitalist structure and enjoy civil rights, and cable TV.....
we would not piss of the united nations and the planet as a whole.
our name would not be mud.

i know, i know...."tell me another story, Qdrop........this time with dragons"

Paul Nice

11-23-2004, 02:02 PM

I love that all the Europeans who are slagging on America are here dickriding American culture because their's died in the 19th century.

Same goes for Canada except they never had their own culture.

STANKY808

11-23-2004, 02:11 PM

Same goes for Canada except they never had their own culture.

Au contraire! But you go on believing America has the best of everything. I guess The Matrix and Brittney pass for culture in some circles.

Schmeltz

11-23-2004, 03:29 PM

Canada's culture is actually very distinct from that of America. That's why we give gay people the same rights as everyone else while you remain mired in antiquarian, theocratic value systems that put the state in the bedrooms of the nation. That's why we'll soon be chilled out on legal marijuana while you'll still be letting the cops tell you how to have a good time. That's why I had my shoulder surgically reconstructed for free while the population of Americans without access to health care is greater than Canada's population, period.

Culture means more than music videos and TV shows. And that's why I'm infinitely happier living in Canada than I could ever be in America, and why I will avoid setting foot there ever again if at all possible.

Rosie Cotton

11-23-2004, 06:08 PM

I love that all the Europeans who are slagging on America are here dickriding American culture because their's died in the 19th century.

Same goes for Canada except they never had their own culture.

Bullshit. American culture is just a watered down amalgamation of other cultures. American "culture" brought the world Nelly and "Dude, Where's My Car?"

Paul Nice

11-23-2004, 07:03 PM

Bullshit. American culture is just a watered down amalgamation of other cultures. American "culture" brought the world Nelly and "Dude, Where's My Car?"

Demonstrating that even the worst of American culture gets devoured by the starving maw of Europe.

And that's to mention nothing of jazz, blues, rock and roll, hip hop, big band, American cinema (true cinema), television shows, plays, literature and that greatest of all American cultural exports - the revolutionary democratic spirit that toppled so many European kings and queens from their thrones.

Ace42

11-23-2004, 07:17 PM

Congratulations on proving catergorically that US citizens live in the land of Oz.

Paul Nice

11-23-2004, 07:24 PM

Congratulations on proving catergorically that US citizens live in the land of Oz.

I invite you to demonstrate what part of my statement smacks of unreality and why.

Ace42

11-23-2004, 07:33 PM

that's to mention nothing of jazz, blues, rock and roll, hip hop, big band, American cinema (true cinema), television shows, plays, literature and that greatest of all American cultural exports - the revolutionary democratic spirit that toppled so many European kings and queens from their thrones.

So, let's see.

Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, all derrived from music of black orgin, improtred through slavery, directly contradicting the declaration of independance (All men are created equal... Oh except for Niggers).

The UK outlawed slavery before the US.

American cinema... Holywood's sucess was based on the lighting conditions. Most of its early actors came from Europe. An obvious example was Peter Lorre (famed for such films As the Maltese Falcon, etc) who was escaped Nazi persecution.

Plays... Of course, Shakespeare, Beckett, Marlowe, Jonson, all American, right? Those crazy America playwrites. More recently? Hmmm... Stoppard, yep he was a yank...

US revolutionary spirit... A spirit which failed to topple the king they were rebelling against... A monarchy which is still in power, unchallenged by the US.

So, by your own list, US culture is a collection of plagarised or falsified accounts...

Well done on being part of a nation of morons, Paul.

Congratulations on calling the rest of the world's innovations your own.

Paul Nice

11-23-2004, 07:56 PM

So, let's see.

Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, all derrived from music of black orgin, improtred through slavery, directly contradicting the declaration of independance (All men are created equal... Oh except for Niggers).

The UK outlawed slavery before the US.

American cinema... Holywood's sucess was based on the lighting conditions. Most of its early actors came from Europe. An obvious example was Peter Lorre (famed for such films As the Maltese Falcon, etc) who was escaped Nazi persecution.

Plays... Of course, Shakespeare, Beckett, Marlowe, Jonson, all American, right? Those crazy America playwrites. More recently? Hmmm... Stoppard, yep he was a yank...

US revolutionary spirit... A spirit which failed to topple the king they were rebelling against... A monarchy which is still in power, unchallenged by the US.

So, by your own list, US culture is a collection of plagarised or falsified accounts...

Well done on being part of a nation of morons, Paul.

Congratulations on calling the rest of the world's innovations your own.

ROFL

Good lord, where to start? Do you even want me to bother, since you halfassed that and though you don't seem particularly bright, you MUST be bright enough to see the holes in that absurd argument.

Anyhow...

So, let's see.

Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, all derrived from music of black orgin, improtred through slavery, directly contradicting the declaration of independance (All men are created equal... Oh except for Niggers).

Perhaps you haven't heard, but African Americans are American.

Also, Rock and Roll was a synthesis of black juke joint blues and southern white hillbilly music. And regardless of which Americans played a role in its genesis, American music DOMINATES WORLDWIDE. People of every nation in Europe listen to it daily and mimic and ape it because they got sick of the accordion and skiffle.

American cinema... Holywood's sucess was based on the lighting conditions. Most of its early actors came from Europe. An obvious example was Peter Lorre (famed for such films As the Maltese Falcon, etc) who was escaped Nazi persecution.

This is a nice non sequitur. Fascinating. Regardless, American cinema has DOMINATED since the inception of the art, worldwide.

Plays... Of course, Shakespeare, Beckett, Marlowe, Jonson, all American, right? Those crazy America playwrites. More recently? Hmmm... Stoppard, yep he was a yank...

I'm not downplaying Britian's playwrights. Britain has the greatest legacy of playwrites and the greatest body of literature that the world has ever seen or ever will see.

US revolutionary spirit... A spirit which failed to topple the king they were rebelling against... A monarchy which is still in power, unchallenged by the US.

1. The object of the Revolution was not to topple that silly monarchy, it was to gain self rule.

2. The english monarchy is no longer "in power" in any fashion. The Queen is an antiquated, quaint celebrity, much like Bob Hope before he croaked.

So, by your own list, US culture is a collection of plagarised or falsified accounts...

LOL

By your own account, your grasp on history wouldn't get you into the 8th grade in one of our own horrid, union-run public schools.

Ace42

11-23-2004, 08:07 PM

ROFL

Again, the spastic laughing at the people disgusted by his self-defectation.

Perhaps you haven't heard, but African Americans are American.

Perhaps you don't appreciate the fact that Jazz and Blues are a reaction to their ENFORCED servitude and denegration, not a celebration of the culture they are imported into.

And regardless of which Americans played a role in its genesis, American music DOMINATES WORLDWIDE. People of every nation in Europe listen to it daily and mimic and ape it because they got sick of the accordion and skiffle.

Of course, the fact that all American music is based around the "perfect key" as developed by Bach, a German, in Europe, centuries before the US was discovered by white men has nothing to do with that.

This is a nice non sequitur. Fascinating. Regardless, American cinema has DOMINATED since the inception of the art, worldwide.

Who can forget such timeless classics as Rambo, The Terminator, and Home Alone.

I'm not downplaying Britian's playwrights. Britain has the greatest legacy of playwrites and the greatest body of literature that the world has ever seen or ever will see.

Except for when you cite playwrights in your argument as an example of how it is Europe (of which the UK is a part, as people keep reminding me) that is apeing the US's accomplishments. Spartan though they are,

1. The object of the Revolution was not to topple that silly monarchy, it was to gain self rule.

2. The english monarchy is no longer "in power" in any fashion. The Queen is an antiquated, quaint celebrity, much like Bob Hope before he croaked.

And you said the US was "the revolutionary democratic spirit that toppled so many European kings and queens from their thrones."

A nation which failed to even topple the European king it was suceeding from, from his throne.

That is a failure of the most evident magnitude.

The ramifications are beside the point, it still makes your point a nonsense.

By your own account, your grasp on history wouldn't get you into the 8th grade in one of our own horrid, union-run public schools.

And yet your argument's only salvation is the absurd idea that by gaining independance from the UK, the US somehow managed to secure the removal of monarchy in Europe. Despite the US failing overthrow a single monarch in the UK, nor even set a single solitary example of how to overthrow an example.

I am amused that I am being lectured on history by someone so busily occupied it re-writing it.

Want me to throw a few "LOL" and "ROFL"s into the post to bring it down to your level?

Space

11-23-2004, 08:11 PM

Rosie Cotton

11-23-2004, 08:15 PM

Perhaps you haven't heard, but African Americans are American.

Also, Rock and Roll was a synthesis of black juke joint blues and southern white hillbilly music. And regardless of which Americans played a role in its genesis, American music DOMINATES WORLDWIDE. People of every nation in Europe listen to it daily and mimic and ape it because they got sick of the accordion and skiffle.

If it hadn't been for British rock bands we would have been stuck with country-rock. Most American rock musicians were either country with a little les twang, one-hit wonders, or died in a plane crash with the Big Bopper. It might have gotten its start here, but it took four Liverpudlians to get right.

[QUOTE]This is a nice non sequitur. Fascinating. Regardless, American cinema has DOMINATED since the inception of the art, worldwide.{/QUOTE]

"Lord of the Rings" mean anything? We gave the world the Matrix trilogy, and two good Star Wars movies. We put out more movie. Quantity still doesn't trump quality.

Rosie Cotton

11-23-2004, 08:19 PM

And what the fuck does "ROFL" mean? Please, they didn't teach us text-speak in any English class I had.

Ace42

11-23-2004, 08:41 PM

It is moronese for "I am rolling upon the floor laughing."

It is a shorthand used by idiots to try and convey an idiocy so self-evident, that the mere idea of voicing it would be in itself ridiculous.

Of course, an idiot's idiocy is oxymoronical.

ASsman

11-23-2004, 08:44 PM

GWAH-POW!

Rosie Cotton

11-23-2004, 09:03 PM

Paul Nice

11-23-2004, 09:28 PM

Again, the spastic laughing at the people disgusted by his self-defectation.

Perhaps you don't appreciate the fact that Jazz and Blues are a reaction to their ENFORCED servitude and denegration, not a celebration of the culture they are imported into.

Perhaps you don't appreciate the fact that this supports my point rather than refutes it. Those are all distinctly American art forms. Refute either that they are American or that the world has embraced them. These are the twin pillars upon which this particular argument stands. The "perfect key" argument, though laughably absurd, was at least attacking the basis of my argument.

Of course, the fact that all American music is based around the "perfect key" as developed by Bach, a German, in Europe, centuries before the US was discovered by white men has nothing to do with that.

LOL

They are also sung in English. Does that make Hip Hop an English phenomenon? Are you attempting to argue that the musical genres I've cited are not American?

Who can forget such timeless classics as Rambo, The Terminator, and Home Alone.

Non sequitur. Irrelevant. I'm not sure if this is your first debate or not, but to refute a point you must attack the facts on which it is founded. Citing the bottom of the barrel of the movies America has exported to the world (and all three of these were typically devoured by Europe) does not do that. Please try harder.

Except for when you cite playwrights in your argument as an example of how it is Europe (of which the UK is a part, as people keep reminding me) that is apeing the US's accomplishments. Spartan though they are,

I said Europe was aping America's music, not her plays. I merely cited American plays as another example of American culture being exported to the world.

Another tip: try and respond to points I've actually made. Making up your own for me and then knocking it down is called a "straw man".

And you said the US was "the revolutionary democratic spirit that toppled so many European kings and queens from their thrones."

I said that the aforementioned "revolutionary democratic spirit" was a US export which did that. The US, being the first modern nation to establish a democratic government (in her case a democratic republic) was the spark that fired the spreading of democratic ideals which then took hold in the hearts of Frenchman and spread outward. England's queen was, of course, only figuratively toppled and then only eventually. Is there still a House of Lords in England? The mind reels.

A nation which failed to even topple the European king it was suceeding from, from his throne.

Seceeding, old boy. Seceeding.

That is a failure of the most evident magnitude.

Is it a failure to not accomplish that which you did not endeavor to accomplish? I like that logic. Here's more of it: The RAF's part in the Battle of Britain was a failure because they did not succeed in ending world hunger.

And yet your argument's only salvation is the absurd idea that by gaining independance from the UK, the US somehow managed to secure the removal of monarchy in Europe. Despite the US failing overthrow a single monarch in the UK, nor even set a single solitary example of how to overthrow an example.

Strawman. I've never stated nor implied that the US "somehow managed to secure the removal of monarchy in Europe". You'll have to try again, dear.

I am amused that I am being lectured on history by someone so busily occupied it re-writing it.

From this angle it would seem you could use all the lecturing you could get from anywhere you could get it - especially in the art of debate.

Want me to throw a few "LOL" and "ROFL"s into the post to bring it down to your level?

By all means, though they would be dishonest were they not directed at your very own posts.

Paul Nice

11-23-2004, 09:29 PM

If it hadn't been for British rock bands we would have been stuck with country-rock. Most American rock musicians were either country with a little les twang, one-hit wonders, or died in a plane crash with the Big Bopper. It might have gotten its start here, but it took four Liverpudlians to get right.

This is a nice non sequitur. Fascinating. Regardless, American cinema has DOMINATED since the inception of the art, worldwide.

"Lord of the Rings" mean anything? We gave the world the Matrix trilogy, and two good Star Wars movies. We put out more movie. Quantity still doesn't trump quality.

Atrocious. What is your first language?

Paul Nice

11-23-2004, 09:31 PM

Thank you. I am slightly illiterate when it comes to internet shorthand.

No, you are just less of a nerd than the rest of us.

Rosie Cotton

11-23-2004, 09:44 PM

No, you are just less of a nerd than the rest of us.

Meh, I'm not less of a nerd. I just enjoy speaking the English language, not some silly shorthand, which, by the way, I have seen more teenies use "lol" "rofl" etc, than nerds.

Rosie Cotton

11-23-2004, 09:47 PM

Atrocious. What is your first language?

What the fuck are you talking about? What was so atrocious? "Liverpudlians"? Is that what you're getting your knickers in a twist over? English is my first language. Maybe if it had been text talk we would be on the same level?

Ace42

11-23-2004, 10:08 PM

LOL

Need I say more?

Paul Nice

11-23-2004, 10:15 PM

What the fuck are you talking about? What was so atrocious?

Your insinuation that those were the only good American movies.

#1. Citizen Kane (1941)
Nominee
#2. Casablanca (1942)
Winner
#11. It's A Wonderful Life (1946)
Nominee
#21. The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
Nominee
#23. The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Nominee
#30. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
Nominee
#37. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
Winner
#38. Double Indemnity (1944)
Nominee
#51. The Philadelphia Story (1940)
Nominee
#57. The Third Man (1949)
#58. Fantasia (1940)
#100. Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)
Nominee
1950s: 1950-1959
20 Films

#8. On The Waterfront (1954)
Winner
#10. Singin' In The Rain (1952)
#12. Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Nominee
#13. The Bridge On The River Kwai (1957)
Winner
#14. Some Like It Hot (1959)
#16. All About Eve (1950)
Winner
#17. The African Queen (1951)
#33. High Noon (1952)
Nominee
#40. North By Northwest (1959)
#42. Rear Window (1954)
#45. A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
Nominee
#52. From Here to Eternity (1953)
Winner
#59. Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
#61. Vertigo (1958)
#68. An American In Paris (1951)
Winner
#69. Shane (1953)
Nominee
#72. Ben-Hur (1959)
Winner
#82. Giant (1956)
Nominee
#92. A Place in the Sun (1951)
Nominee
#96. The Searchers (1956)
1960s: 1960-1969
18 Films

#5. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Winner
#7. The Graduate (1967)
Nominee
#18. Psycho (1960)
#22. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
#26. Dr. Strangelove or: How I ... (1964)
Nominee
#27. Bonnie And Clyde (1967)
Nominee
#34. To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
Nominee
#36. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
Winner
#39. Doctor Zhivago (1965)
Nominee
#41. West Side Story (1961)
Winner
#50. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
Nominee
#55. The Sound of Music (1965)
Winner
#67. The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
#80. The Wild Bunch (1969)
#88. Easy Rider (1969)
#91. My Fair Lady (1964)
Winner
#93. The Apartment (1960)
Winner
#99. Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1967)
Nominee
1970s: 1970-1979
18 Films

#3. The Godfather (1972)
Winner
#15. Star Wars (1977)
Nominee
#19. Chinatown (1974)
Nominee
#20. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Winner
#28. Apocalypse Now (1979)
Nominee
#31. Annie Hall (1977)
Winner
#32. The Godfather, Part II (1974)
Winner
#46. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Nominee
#47. Taxi Driver (1976)
Nominee
#48. Jaws (1975)
Nominee
#56. M*A*S*H (1970)
Nominee
#64. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
#66. Network (1976)
Nominee
#70. The French Connection (1971)
Winner
#77. American Graffiti (1973)
Nominee
#78. Rocky (1976)
Winner
#79. The Deer Hunter (1978)
Winner
#89. Patton (1970)
Winner
1980s: 1980-1989
6 Films

#24. Raging Bull (1980)
Nominee
#25. E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Nominee
#53. Amadeus (1984)
Winner
#60. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Nominee
#62. Tootsie (1982)
Nominee
#83. Platoon (1986)
Winner
1990s: 1990-1996
8 Films

#9. Schindler's List (1993)
Winner
#65. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Winner
#71. Forrest Gump (1994)
Winner
#75. Dances With Wolves (1990)
Winner
#84. Fargo (1996)
Nominee
#94. GoodFellas (1990)
Nominee
#95. Pulp Fiction (1994)
Nominee
#98. Unforgiven (1992)

Paul Nice

11-23-2004, 10:16 PM

Need I say more?

Not unless you plan on digging yourself into a deeper hole.

Rosie Cotton

11-23-2004, 11:15 PM

Your insinuation that those were the only good American movies.

Then why did you ask what my first language was?

#1. Citizen Kane (1941)
Nominee
#2. Casablanca (1942)
Winner
#11. It's A Wonderful Life (1946)
Nominee
#21. The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
Nominee
#23. The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Nominee
#30. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
Nominee
#37. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
Winner
#38. Double Indemnity (1944)
Nominee
#51. The Philadelphia Story (1940)
Nominee
#57. The Third Man (1949)
#58. Fantasia (1940)
#100. Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)
Nominee

The only one that I actually like in that group is Fantasia, which if I am correct, does not contain a single piece of music by an American. And there would be no Fantasia without the music.

1950s: 1950-1959
20 Films

#8. On The Waterfront (1954)
Winner
#10. Singin' In The Rain (1952)
#12. Sunset Boulevard (1950)
Nominee
#13. The Bridge On The River Kwai (1957)
Winner
#14. Some Like It Hot (1959)
#16. All About Eve (1950)
Winner
#17. The African Queen (1951)
#33. High Noon (1952)
Nominee
#40. North By Northwest (1959)
#42. Rear Window (1954)
#45. A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
Nominee
#52. From Here to Eternity (1953)
Winner
#59. Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
#61. Vertigo (1958)
#68. An American In Paris (1951)
Winner
#69. Shane (1953) SHANE?! SHANE?!
Nominee
#72. Ben-Hur (1959)
Winner
#82. Giant (1956)
Nominee
#92. A Place in the Sun (1951)
Nominee
#96. The Searchers (1956)

I din't see any that I actually liked there.

1960s: 1960-1969
18 Films

#5. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Winner
#7. The Graduate (1967)
Nominee
#18. Psycho (1960)
#22. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
#26. Dr. Strangelove or: How I ... (1964)
Nominee
#27. Bonnie And Clyde (1967)
Nominee
#34. To Kill A Mockingbird (1962)
Nominee
#36. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
Winner
#39. Doctor Zhivago (1965)
Nominee
#41. West Side Story (1961)
Winner
#50. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
Nominee
#55. The Sound of Music (1965)
Winner
#67. The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
#80. The Wild Bunch (1969)
#88. Easy Rider (1969)
#91. My Fair Lady (1964)
Winner
#93. The Apartment (1960)
Winner
#99. Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1967)
Nominee

Psycho and To Kill a Mockingbird are good. But this list has far too many cheesy musicals. And Bonnie and Clyde was a terrible movie! One of the most factually inaccurate movies I've seen.

1970s: 1970-1979
18 Films

#3. The Godfather (1972)
Winner
#15. Star Wars (1977)
Nominee
#19. Chinatown (1974)
Nominee
#20. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Winner
#28. Apocalypse Now (1979)
Nominee
#31. Annie Hall (1977)
Winner
#32. The Godfather, Part II (1974)
Winner
#46. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Nominee
#47. Taxi Driver (1976)
Nominee
#48. Jaws (1975)
Nominee
#56. M*A*S*H (1970)
Nominee
#64. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
#66. Network (1976)
Nominee
#70. The French Connection (1971)
Winner
#77. American Graffiti (1973)
Nominee
#78. Rocky (1976)
Winner
#79. The Deer Hunter (1978)
Winner
#89. Patton (1970)
Winner

The only group thus far were I like more than half of them.

1980s: 1980-1989
6 Films

#24. Raging Bull (1980)
Nominee
#25. E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Nominee
#53. Amadeus (1984)
Winner
#60. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Nominee
#62. Tootsie (1982)
Nominee
#83. Platoon (1986)
Winner

I know everyone else loves them, but I've always thought the Indiana Jones films were a tad overrated. And there is a glaring omission in this list: The Empire Strikes Back. By far the best of the trilogy. Though I guess they could only put one on this list.

1990s: 1990-1996
8 Films

#9. Schindler's List (1993)
Winner
#65. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Winner
#71. Forrest Gump (1994)
Winner
#75. Dances With Wolves (1990)
Winner
#84. Fargo (1996)
Nominee
#94. GoodFellas (1990)
Nominee
#95. Pulp Fiction (1994)
Nominee
#98. Unforgiven (1992)

Hahaha! Dances With Wolves?! Kevin Costner?! What is Pulp Fiction doing on here? Reservoir Dogs is Tarantino's best film. PF is good, but not great. And now he's just sticking Uma Thurman into half-baked remakes of vastly superior Bruce Lee movies. And zooming in on her feet. And, I know it shouldn't bother me, but why no Kevin Smith?

What was this list from, anyway? Turner Classic Movies? Or just a bunch of pissed off critics who can't hack it as a real writer or director?

For every Citizen Kane or Star Wars: A New Hope (what was with leaving out the actual title?) there is:

Gigli
Kangaroo Jack
Dude, Where's my Car?
Glitter
From Justin to Kelly
Seed of Chucky (although I do kind of want to see this)
The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (damn you, Lucas! Kill Jar Jar! And resurrect Darth Maul!)
Anything with Hillary Duff
Crossroads
The third Austin Powers movie (let it die, Mike)
Almost anything with Kevin Costner

There are so many bad movies to come out of this country that it kind of defeats your arguement. And many American movies are just shitty remakes of much better foreign films. Yeah, we have a fantastic culture.

phinkasaurus

11-23-2004, 11:32 PM

I agree, the US makes shitty movies and bad music and bad art, etc; but the u.s. also makes good movies and good music and art, etc. Prime example: The Beatsie Boys. And by her very formation process, the U.S. has a young mash up of cultures. So alot of shit, some good, some great.

But here is the issue:
Why does it sell so well in the world?
and don't say "it's better than everything else"
it's not and you know it. (n)
and if you can cite that as your honest opinion, then you need help.
I relaize money has alot to do with it, the u.s. has enough money thrown into these "blockbuster" films, very impressive spectacles, hard to ignore. but the bulk of the u.s. exported "entertainment" is shitty and fails here horribly. Or maybe the shtty products fail in Europe too? I don't know...

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 12:14 AM

^^Bravo!

Johnny Depp was right: we are a stupid country.

D_Raay

11-24-2004, 12:16 AM

The SpongeBob Squarepants Movie
Hey, I object to this one. I find him refreshingly simple amongst other cartoon characters. Besides my girls love him..

DroppinScience

11-24-2004, 12:16 AM

Ugh, you guys are SO lame. :rolleyes:

D_Raay

11-24-2004, 12:21 AM

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 12:25 AM

Hey, I object to this one. I find him refreshingly simple amongst other cartoon characters. Besides my girls love him..

I like the show, but damn, Hasslehoff? Oh, if you're ever in Tulsa, OK don't set you rhotel room on fire when SpongeBob is on. The fire fighters get really pissed if they miss it.

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 12:26 AM

Ugh, you guys are SO lame. :rolleyes:

Hey! I resemble that remark! :D

DroppinScience

11-24-2004, 12:33 AM

One thing I'll point out about cinema.

No, America didn't DOMINATE the cinema ever since its inception.

If you've looked up film history, the prime dominance was centered in France (Lumiere brothers and Melies). At the same time, it was also thriving in America (the likes of Edison and peeps), true. But it didn't have any claim to dominance just yet.

It was only in the WWI-era did it start for America to have dominance.

By the same token, cinema has been quite strong if you look throughout the world. The French, the Italians, the Germans, the Japanese... all have libraries and libraries full of great films!

I love my Hollywood films, don't get me wrong, but don't be snubbing other countries' cinemas (bet you haven't even bothered to watch them) just because you're an arrogant prick.

DroppinScience

11-24-2004, 12:34 AM

Hey! I resemble that remark! :D

Sorry, here's my revised statement.

ALL of you are lame. Except Rosie, she keeps it real.

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 12:37 AM

Sorry, here's my revised statement.

ALL of you are lame. Except Rosie, she keeps it real.

Thank you. I'm not lame, just a dork.

Paul Nice

11-24-2004, 01:01 AM

For every Citizen Kane or Star Wars: A New Hope (what was with leaving out the actual title?) there is:

1. For every Star Wars there are THOUSANDS of shit movies. And they didn't use "A New Hope" because when it was released, about a thousand years before you were born, it was billed as "Star Wars" and people didn't see the words "A New Hope" until the intro of the movie.
2. The phrase "for every Citizen Kane" is problematic, as there is only one Citizen Kane. It is peerless. The greatest piece of filmmaking ever concieved.

And Rosie, I'm not saying you have bad taste in movies, just that you don't know a lot about them. That grouping in which you claimed there were "too many cheesy musicals" had only two in it, I believe, and every one is a bona fide critically acclaimed smash the world over. I feel you on Dances w/Wolves though.

And again, the argument that America has not dominated cinema is absurd. The argument that American culture has not dominated the world is absurd. Go to Japan or Europe or wherever, you'll see folks wearing blue jeans, listening to hip hop or rock and going to see Kill Bill Vol 2. They're not wearing fucking lederhosen and listening to polka.

Also - this is not to denigrate the films of Europe or China or South America. I've seen four foreign films in the last month (Zelary, Enduring Love, Nicotina and Gloomy Sunday) and they were all excellent. Gloomy Sunday, a hungarian film (I believe) blows any American movie this year away so bad it's not worth talking about. See it.

Paul Nice

11-24-2004, 01:03 AM

love my Hollywood films, don't get me wrong, but don't be snubbing other countries' cinemas (bet you haven't even bothered to watch them) just because you're an arrogant prick.

The ignorant often mistake correctitude for arrogance.

Regardless, peruse my last post young man. In the last month alone I've seen a Czech film, a British film (Enduring Love - it's good), a Mexican film and a Hungarian one. The Hungarian one was the best I've seen all year from any nation.

Paul Nice

11-24-2004, 01:06 AM

As far as the France thing goes, my two cents, we are but a fledgling nation in comparison to France and other nations in Europe. Ever hear of a little thing called experience? Trial and Error? Thousands of years of conflicts, disease? We are spoiled here and the only reason we are a viable entity in the world is our unquenchable need to consume.

*yawn*

You'll get through the "I'm A Freshman In College And I'm Supposed To Hate America" phase soon, so don't sweat it too hard.

What did all Europe's thousands of years of experience get them? That's right - two world wars in 30 years time. Way to live and learn.

chromium05

11-24-2004, 02:23 AM

I have just jumped straight to this page so may be missing a point, but on the subject or films, I watched David Lynch's "The Straight Story" and it was one of the most beautiful films ever.

If you haven't seen it, see it. Sure, it looks like it will be boring but there is something about....... (y)

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 02:34 AM

1. For every Star Wars there are THOUSANDS of shit movies. And they didn't use "A New Hope" because when it was released, about a thousand years before you were born, it was billed as "Star Wars" and people didn't see the words "A New Hope" until the intro of the movie.

So? These people are supposed to be experts. They should know what the correct title is.

And I was born in 1982. Five years after the film's release.

2. The phrase "for every Citizen Kane" is problematic, as there is only one Citizen Kane. It is peerless. The greatest piece of filmmaking ever concieved.

I meant that for every classic there is a shitload of, well, shit. Citizen Kane and A New Hope were just examples of classics. And there is no such thing as "greatest piece of filmmaking ever conceived". That's a matter of opinion.

And Rosie, I'm not saying you have bad taste in movies, just that you don't know a lot about them. That grouping in which you claimed there were "too many cheesy musicals" had only two in it, I believe, and every one is a bona fide critically acclaimed smash the world over. I feel you on Dances w/Wolves though.

I believe what I said was there were too many cheesy musicals on the LIST, not in that particular GROUP. If that's not what I said, my bad, it's what I meant. And again, it's all a matter of opinion. Critical acclaim means shit. There are movies that have recieved tons of praise and flopped, or were reviled and made a ton of money. Critics are pointless. Just angry unemployed directors and writers.

And again, the argument that America has not dominated cinema is absurd. The argument that American culture has not dominated the world is absurd. Go to Japan or Europe or wherever, you'll see folks wearing blue jeans, listening to hip hop or rock and going to see Kill Bill Vol 2. They're not wearing fucking lederhosen and listening to polka.

No body said that America hasn't dominated film. What I've been saying is that our pop-culture product is, more often than not, sub-par. Of course, I'm sure it's that way in any country.

As for American culture, there is no such thing. You are referring to entertainment, which for the most part is either based on, or is a piss poor carbon copy of the cultures of other countries. The Japanese like Kill Bill? Good movie, but it's an homage to movies that Tarantino liked, that came out of that region. It's an Americanized version of their culture. We don't have a culture of our own.

Also - this is not to denigrate the films of Europe or China or South America. I've seen four foreign films in the last month (Zelary, Enduring Love, Nicotina and Gloomy Sunday) and they were all excellent. Gloomy Sunday, a hungarian film (I believe) blows any American movie this year away so bad it's not worth talking about. See it.

(y)

D_Raay

11-24-2004, 02:46 AM

*yawn*

You'll get through the "I'm A Freshman In College And I'm Supposed To Hate America" phase soon, so don't sweat it too hard.

What did all Europe's thousands of years of experience get them? That's right - two world wars in 30 years time. Way to live and learn.
Come on man, as a fellow libertarian, you really can't be this misguided. As if before the world wars there were no wars. And I am no freshman in college, I am 33 and been around quite a bit. Has America ever lived through the black plague? The crusades? Present history is not the only history. I am surprised at you, are you an active libertarian? Or do you just fancy yourself as one?

synch

11-24-2004, 03:06 AM

"Lord of the Rings" mean anything? We gave the world the Matrix trilogy, and two good Star Wars movies. We put out more movie. Quantity still doesn't trump quality.
I have no interest whatsoever to join in discussing whether Europe or the US is better endowed, however... it's kinda typical that "Lord of the Rings" is seen as an American movie as it was filmed by a guy from New Zealand, IN New Zealand and based on a book written by a guy born in South Africa from British parents (I had to look that bit up).

America was "discovered" by an Italian (that got marvelously lost) on a Spanish vessel in 1492. Reading some comments it seems like there are Americans that think that America is at the basis of everything. It's been at the basis of many things, some good, some bad but it's not like you invented oxygen.

Gazrock

11-24-2004, 03:23 AM

I find it quite surprising that people on hear still assume "biggest is best"
Yes the biggest grossing movie ever is American (Probably because americans have so much disposable income they all went to see it twice)
And the biggest selling Music album is American, does that mean The Eagles Greatest Hits is the best album ever - NO.

Just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean its the best in its genre, be it music or movies etc. A person is smart, People are stupid.

And I wouldn't I be correct in assuming that 75% of Americans are of European decsent anyway.

Theres really no need for all this "My country/continent is better than yours" Its School playground shit and we should grow up so (unless someone gives me a good load of abuse) this will be my only post (lucky you)

Peace

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 03:27 AM

I have no interest whatsoever to join in discussing whether Europe or the US is better endowed, however... it's kinda typical that "Lord of the Rings" is seen as an American movie as it was filmed by a guy from New Zealand, IN New Zealand and based on a book written by a guy born in South Africa from British parents (I had to look that bit up).

This is the quote that I was responding too:

This is a nice non sequitur. Fascinating. Regardless, American cinema has DOMINATED since the inception of the art, worldwide.

I was saying that the best films are not always American.

synch

11-24-2004, 03:51 AM

I was saying that the best films are not always American.
Ah, my apologies, I had just woken up and skimmed the thread instead of properly reading it :)

I still stand by my point but it shouldn't have been aimed at you :)

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 03:53 AM

No probs. (y)

Ali

11-24-2004, 05:36 AM

Meh, I'm not less of a nerd. I just enjoy speaking the English language, not some silly shorthand, which, by the way, I have seen more teenies use "lol" "rofl" etc, than nerds. WTF does meh mean?

synch

11-24-2004, 05:59 AM

"Bleh, whatever"

ish.

ASsman

11-24-2004, 07:46 AM

I didn't see any porn titles. We produce more porn than all of the rest of the World combined. Im sure there are some classics, like Taboo 2.

Qdrop

11-24-2004, 08:23 AM

*yawn*

You'll get through the "I'm A Freshman In College And I'm Supposed To Hate America" phase soon, so don't sweat it too hard.

classic.

i'm in pretty much total agreement with everything you are saying.....

but you're not gonna get anywere with the lefty radicals on this board on an topic.

and as soon as you do (you are OWNING ACe) they just put you on ignore......they don't handle challenges very well.

hell, most of them can't see this post for that reason....
and the fact that i annoy the living piss out them.

i can't help it if half thier posts practically have bullseye targets painted on them.

for better of for worse, America dominates the world on virtually every level.....
does that mean america is better than every other (country, gov't, movie, music, art, ect)? draw your own conclusions......it's mostly subjective.

the fact that american dominates should not be the point of this debate....

rather...why?

synch

11-24-2004, 08:29 AM

I'm a european leftie.

Dominate me.

Go on then.

Many americans seem to suffer from an inferiority complex so big that they just kick against the rest of the world to prove to themselves that they aren't inferior.

I have no beef with the american people, I merely despise the actions of the top 0.5% of the country and the people exploited by them that defend them anyway.

drobertson420

11-24-2004, 08:40 AM

"...and as soon as you do (you are OWNING ACe) they just put you on ignore......they don't handle challenges very well."

I hear that!

racer5.0stang

11-24-2004, 08:52 AM

It is too bad we have had to help rebuild half of the world.

synch

11-24-2004, 08:57 AM

It's only fair seeing as you blew it up yourself.

racer5.0stang

11-24-2004, 09:25 AM

It's only fair seeing as you blew it up yourself.

I guess it is only fair.

Qdrop

11-24-2004, 09:39 AM

It's only fair seeing as you blew it up yourself.

come on.

We blew it up ourselves.....
so our action in WW1 and WW2 were completely selfish?
and the rebiulding afterwards?

Korean war and Vietnam....
perhaps many feel our logic on the "domino theory" of communism was flawed, but establishing colonies, bases, outposts, trade agreements, similiar gov't structures around the world is basic MO of any powerfull country....
every european country strove to do it for hundreds of years.....that is the key to wealth and power.

People seem to forget that communist countries were attempting to outreach and spead just as much as the US.....yet because we outlasted and outperformed (thanks to a superior capitalistic system), WE are the bad little "imperialists" that the world hates......we are the nasty BIG brother.

Iraq (91')....justified.....we stopped a dictator from occupying another and speading his regime, and gaining more power and wealth with kawaiti oil fields.
and yes, there were selfish motives there as well.
that oil looked good to us as well.......
but at least our PRIMARY MO is to establish profitable trade with countries....not to simply occupy and drain them dry.

we have done that.....yes. we have supported dictators over possible democatic opposition because it was better for our pocket book.(latin america, IRAQ and IRAN in the 70-80's). not proud memories. but necessarry to keep our country rich and strong.
like snoop said: you pay the cost, to be the boss.
those tactics can be debated endlessly....and morally...yes, america would be on the losing end.
but morals don't build countries......or keep them strong, safe, and growing.
money does. period.

everywhere we trample, we clean up afterwards 9 out of 10 times. it is in our best interest to.

we didn't in afganastand in the 80's, when we were funding bin laden's war against russia (he was lesser of the 2 evils at the time), then bailed without helping to rebiuld- sealing the impoverished fate of millions......and we are paying for it now.....

we learn.

we will not leave Iraq currentley until we have completed the job.
removed the regime, set up a stable democratic system, and acheived reasonable levels of public safety.
although it will never be a perfect utopia........religious beliefs won't allow that.

if any one OBJECTIVELY ever asked themselves what the state of the world would be if america never stepped in anywhere.....it would be scary planet indeed.
someone take that and run with it......that would be an interesting debate too....

synch

11-24-2004, 09:48 AM

I wouldn't have come out saying "america blew up the world" if the "It is too bad we have had to help rebuild half of the world." comment wasn't made.

As you've stated in your post many (I might go out on a limb and say "most") messes that were cleaned up were messes that were created out of your own best interest.

I've never underestimated the role of the US in the second world war but the fact still remains that the US entered the world only after being attacked on their own ground and the fact that you've helped liberate europe is still being used against europe (mainly france, but then again, it seems france is the anti-christ these days).

My stance? The US is neither saint nor satan and the blatant and blind anti-american statements are as unfounded as the blatant and blind anti-european sentiments.

Can we agree at least on this last bit? :)

racer5.0stang

11-24-2004, 09:58 AM

[QUOTE=synch]

I've never underestimated the role of the US in the second world war but the fact still remains that the US entered the world only after being attacked on their own ground and the fact that you've helped liberate europe is still being used against europe (mainly france, but then again, it seems france is the anti-christ these days).QUOTE]

1 John 4:2-4

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

synch

11-24-2004, 10:02 AM

I'm bible illiterate, sorry 'bout that. Would you mind making your point in your own words as I sincerely don't understand what you mean by quoting that.

Qdrop

11-24-2004, 10:02 AM

synch

11-24-2004, 10:06 AM

Hehe, awww shucks ;)

Paul Nice

11-24-2004, 12:07 PM

Many americans seem to suffer from an inferiority complex so big that they just kick against the rest of the world to prove to themselves that they aren't inferior.

pro·jec·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-jkshn)

n.
Psychology.

The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” (Alex Shoumatoff).

The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

Paul Nice

11-24-2004, 12:10 PM

General political is the case and point as to why America cant get its shit together.

If a bunch of internet geeks (and I count myself among you, but honestly, that is all we are on here), who are mostly americans themselves cant even find a common ground and unite on SOMETHING, then how is an entire country as big as america is geographically speaking, going to find any sort of peace?

Our merry continent has been at peace for a hundred and forty years. Yours hasn't been wholly at peace for an entire decade EVER.

Qdrop

11-24-2004, 12:18 PM

Our merry continent has been at peace for a hundred and forty years. Yours hasn't been wholly at peace for an entire decade EVER.

montygirl lives in NY......

i assume you are speaking to the euro's in this thread......

Schmeltz

11-24-2004, 02:01 PM

arrogant

\Ar"ro*gant\, a. [F. arrogant, L. arrogans, p. pr. of arrogare. See Arrogate.] 1. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; assuming; haughty

All those violent interventions in Mexico and Central America (you know, the southern part of our merry continent) kind of give the lie to that notion about a "hundred and forty years of peace," methinks. As does the fact that America has been more or less constantly at war with somebody for almost seven decades.

Qdrop

11-24-2004, 02:07 PM

As does the fact that America has been more or less constantly at war with somebody for almost seven decades.

"Paid the Cost to be the Boss"

Schmeltz

11-24-2004, 02:12 PM

What the hell are you talking about? You didn't pay the cost, millions of Vietnamese, Koreans, Chileans, Cubans, Iranians, Cambodians, and Iraqis paid it. With their lives. Gee, I hope they feel it was worth it.

Dang, I hope this post doesn't give Paul Nice a stiffy.

Qdrop

11-24-2004, 03:10 PM

What the hell are you talking about? You didn't pay the cost, millions of Vietnamese, Koreans, Chileans, Cubans, Iranians, Cambodians, and Iraqis paid it. With their lives.

and america suffered no casualtlies in any of those wars?....or fit one hell of a bill?
and suffered permanant moral standing damage in the eyes of most of the world?
we are mired in debt and casualties in IRAQ right now, in hopes that it will pay off.......it's one hell of a gamble, ....yet again.

but at least America sticks it's neck out to try and protect/collect it's interests.

it's so hardline, but if your country is faced with the collective will of Amercia, you had better fuckin do what we say.....particulary if our interests and profit is at stake.
would you tell your boss to fuck off in most cases?...no, you need the paycheck.....so you take his shit and deal with it (to an extent, of course)...perhaps someday, YOU will be the boss and you can call the shots.....but not yet.

when any of these smaller countries through out the years decide to stand up to american interests and puff their chests....they know what they are getting into.....
mice have no place picking fights (or resisting) with tigers.......

we aren't trying to rape their women and bleed thier culture (though most lefties would disagree strongly)....we want optimum profit oppurtunity. and we can make it worth thier while if they cooperate.
what did north vietnam gain by going communitst? ANYONE?
and north Korea?

compare and contrast the countries that have been our allies throughout the decades with those dictatorships/communist regimes that have fought against and resisted us/ignored our wishes.......who are better off today?

immoral?......that doesn't matter....that's reality.

perhaps, someday.....we will be the mice again......and then someone else will be the tiger.....and we will have to sway with their wind.....
but not yet.

Ace42

11-24-2004, 03:55 PM

Your insinuation that those were the only good American movies.

#13. The Bridge On The River Kwai (1957)
Winner

Full of English actors.

#26. Dr. Strangelove or: How I ... (1964)
Nominee

Like most of Kubrick's early work, filmed in the UK at Ealing studios. Ditto for Lolita and Clockwork Orange.

#46. A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Nominee

Strangelove is Robin William's favourite film, incidently.

I noticed "American Beauty" which was directed by an Englishman was also not mentioned.

phinkasaurus

11-24-2004, 04:05 PM

Paul Nice

11-24-2004, 04:25 PM

All those violent interventions in Mexico and Central America (you know, the southern part of our merry continent) kind of give the lie to that notion about a "hundred and forty years of peace," methinks.

You think right! I concede that point and stand both corrected and in your debt. I was wrong.

As does the fact that America has been more or less constantly at war with somebody for almost seven decades.

That doesn't bear on whether or not our continent is at peace.

Paul Nice

11-24-2004, 04:27 PM

[QUOTE=Qdrop]immoral?......that doesn't matter....that's reality.[QUOTE]

QDROP: do you agree with it then? Do ends justify the means? Should america do whatever it needs to remain "in power and wealthy?" even at the expense of other lives elsewhere?

Of course. Unfortunately for neocons, what America needs to do to remain in power and wealthy is stop sending her troops and moneys overseas for ANY reason other than to eliminate a real and imminent threat.

Jasonik

11-24-2004, 04:37 PM

do you agree with it then? Do ends justify the means? Should america do whatever it needs to remain "in power and wealthy?" even at the expense of other lives elsewhere? Of course. Unfortunately for neocons, what America needs to do to remain in power and wealthy is stop sending her troops and moneys overseas for ANY reason other than to eliminate a real and imminent threat.

Wow, someone who believes that American lives and interests should be the motivation for US foreign policy.

phinkasaurus

11-24-2004, 04:57 PM

do you agree with it then? Do ends justify the means? Should america do whatever it needs to remain "in power and wealthy?" even at the expense of other lives elsewhere?

first off, that was me not Qdrop.

Of course.
secondly, that you say of course, scares me. At the expense of other lives? That is the height of selfishness. I can only hope you don't have kids and can not effect or influence anyone else.

i hope you realize we are not theonly country on this planet one day.

synch

11-24-2004, 06:19 PM

pro·jec·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-jkshn)

n.
Psychology.

The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” (Alex Shoumatoff).

The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
I'm fairly well educated, I would have had no need to look up the word if you had simply implied I was projecting.

Can you point out to me where exactly I have been doing that by the way? It just seems like a more eloquent version of the old schoolground favourite "I am rubber you are glue".

Incidently, if you believe that the US should protect their interests by any means nescessary then there is no possible discussion, we simply disagree whether that is right or wrong and not whether that is true or false. Many people dismiss it as liberal propaganda but if you actually admit that that is the case we might as well wrap it up here. It won't be a shock to you that while some people see it as "nescessary evil" I see it as arrogant and selfish, but I won't try to force feed you that opinion.

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 09:01 PM

I'm bible illiterate, sorry 'bout that. Would you mind making your point in your own words as I sincerely don't understand what you mean by quoting that.

He can't. He doesn't even seem to understand it.

racer5.0stang

11-24-2004, 11:13 PM

I'm bible illiterate, sorry 'bout that. Would you mind making your point in your own words as I sincerely don't understand what you mean by quoting that.

1 John 4:2-4

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Basically, this saying that you have confessed that you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that you are of God.

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Everyone that has said Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh is not of God, but the spirit of the antichrist, which is already in the world.

4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

In order to be of God, you must be a believer, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and has risen from the dead and now sits at the right hand of the Father and saved you from your sins. The later part of the verse talks a/b the Holy Spirit who lives in you as a believer.

racer5.0stang

11-24-2004, 11:19 PM

He can't. He doesn't even seem to understand it.

There are things written in the bible in which I do not understand or have the ability to comprehend.

Like how God created Man, how Jesus was born of a virgin birth, and how Jesus was able to perform the miracles that he did.

I don't have the ability to understand these things, but we were not meant to know all things, if we were, He would have told us in His word.

All I can do is put my trust in God.

Ace42

11-24-2004, 11:24 PM

There are things written in the bible in which I do not understand or have the ability to comprehend.

That's an understatement.

Like how God created Man, how Jesus was born of a virgin birth, and how Jesus was able to perform the miracles that he did.

And yet you pshaw science which can help provide explanations for all manner of things.

Incidently, I knew someone whose mother was a virgin. Really bizarre, as Iwas jsut mentioning this in IRC. His mother and father had just been fooling around, no penetration, and obviously there must've been some leakage. Anyway, she got pregnant and had him, weird eh?

I don't have the ability to understand these things, but we were not meant to know all things, if we were, He would have told us in His word.

All I can do is put my trust in God.

So mankind is not supposed to know anything God has not told us (either directly, which is pretty much bugger all, as he doesn't talk to us, or indirectly through the bible, a work of man)?

So what about the laws of aerodynamics? What about thermodynamics? What about basic principles of engineering? What about microbiology? Chemistry?

I don't see you living like the Amish, mr. "using a device created by computer-science"

Or did God mean for us to know this, and that is why Bill Gates is the second comming?

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 11:29 PM

Like how God created Man, how Jesus was born of a virgin birth, and how Jesus was able to perform the miracles that he did.

Jesus was supposed to be a learned man. These "miracles" you speak of were probably nothing more than providing some sort of medication to someone who was dying. He was nothing more than a rabbi with a satchel of herbs.

I don't have the ability to understand these things, but we were not meant to know all things, if we were, He would have told us in His word.

Wait, I thought the Bible was supposed to be his word through God?

All I can do is put my trust in God.

You do that.

racer5.0stang

11-24-2004, 11:36 PM

Ace, I am glad to see you back!! It has been kinda lonely on here w/out ya.

Anyways, to the point.

I said that there are things that God has decided not to tell us. I did not say that we couldn't learn anything. I greatly appreciate everything that science and technology has taught us. Like running water, and computers and the internet. How else would I have the ability to talk to some one over seas.

2 Timothy 4:16,17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

racer5.0stang

11-24-2004, 11:38 PM

Jesus was supposed to be a learned man. These "miracles" you speak of were probably nothing more than providing some sort of medication to someone who was dying. He was nothing more than a rabbi with a satchel of herbs.

Wait, I thought the Bible was supposed to be his word through God?

You do that.

So how do explain Lazarus?

Ace42

11-24-2004, 11:40 PM

I said that there are things that God has decided not to tell us. I did not say that we couldn't learn anything.

but we were not meant to know all things, if we were, He would have told us in His word.

That clearly says that if we were meant to know something, he would have told us "in His word." IE in the Bible, or through religious teaching.

Whether it is what you meant or no, that clearly implies that if he has not told us "in his word" then we are "not meant to know it."

I greatly appreciate everything that science and technology has taught us.

But not evolution, a theory which can be observed working on many levels in many places...

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 11:41 PM

Wait, I thought the Bible was supposed to be his word through God?

What the fuck? I meant to say that I thought the Bible was supposed to be God's word through man. Blah.

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 11:44 PM

So how do explain Lazarus?

Hmm, isn't this that end-time shit? I stay away from that. I prefer the parts with Jesus. A slightly easier pill to swallow than an ark with two of each animal (except dinosaurs!) or a fable about a burning bush.

racer5.0stang

11-24-2004, 11:47 PM

That clearly says that if we were meant to know something, he would have told us "in His word." IE in the Bible, or through religious teaching.

Whether it is what you meant or no, that clearly implies that if he has not told us "in his word" then we are "not meant to know it."

But not evolution, a theory which can be observed working on many levels in many places...

The bible directly contradicts evolution and as you said it is a theory of man who his trying to prove that there is no God.

Have you ever wondered why the bible never tries to prove that there is a God?

Psalm 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

racer5.0stang

11-24-2004, 11:48 PM

Hmm, isn't this that end-time shit? I stay away from that. I prefer the parts with Jesus. A slightly easier pill to swallow than an ark with two of each animal (except dinosaurs!) or a fable about a burning bush.

Actually Jesus raised him from the dead.

Rosie Cotton

11-24-2004, 11:56 PM

Actually Jesus raised him from the dead.

Eh, they never actually taught us much about the Bible in CCD class anyway.

DroppinScience

11-25-2004, 12:35 AM

While Americans and Europeans are claiming to be so "different" from each other in your little penis size contest, the rest of the world does NOT give a shit about debates of rock music or world cinema. :rolleyes:

Here's why:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-03.htm

Published on Monday, February 10, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
Twin Vision of Empire
The differences between Europe and the US are exaggerated. To the rest of the world, they look much the same

by Gary Younge

It is with great bemusement that I absorb abuse from white, rightwing Americans, who hark back to the declaration of independence of 1776 as justification for their Euro-bashing, and to the second world war to justify military aggression.

They badger me as though their own reference points represent the sole prism through which global events could possibly be understood. As if the struggle for moral superiority between Europe and the US could have any relevance to someone whose ancestors were brought to the Americas as slaves and whose parents and grandparents lived through the war under colonization.

"If it wasn't for us you would be speaking German," they say. "No, if it wasn't for you," I tell them, "I would probably be speaking Yoruba."

As the diplomatic process over a possible war in Iraq approaches its endgame, the spat between Europe and America is an unwelcome diversion. There are some disputes, we are led to believe, that have a significance beyond themselves alone. Rows with origins in one place and ramifications in many others, which produce not a victor in a single clash but help shape a trend in the bigger scheme of things. Sometimes, as in the conflict between the Soviet Union and the US during the cold war or between cricket (slow, colonial, in decline) and basketball (fast, commercial, on the rise) in the Caribbean, the broader themes are obvious. With others, as with the rivalry between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown or Blur and Oasis, it is difficult to see quite what relevance the disputes hold beyond the immediate outcome and the immediate participants.

The quarrel between Europe and the US falls into the latter category. Those who understand it as a battle between a Europe that is peace-loving, multilateral and sophisticated and an America that is belligerent, isolationist and brash make too much of the differences and too little of the similarities.

As negotiations unfold in the coming weeks, such distortions will become increasingly crucial. By mistaking European pragmatism for principle, it leads many to pin hopes on a European resistance that will almost inevitably falter under US pressure. By underestimating the domestic pressure that George Bush is under to make his case, it obstructs the potential for solidarity with the growing number of Americans who oppose war.

That does not mean that the differences are not significant. Most of Europe is embarking on a grand, multilateral project to build an ever enlarging EU. Meanwhile, the Bush administration spent its first 100 days pulling out of the Kyoto accords and reneging on the 1972 treaty banning germ warfare. Nor does it mean that the differences are not important. Whoever emerges with the upper hand in this particular conflict could well be a matter of life and death for millions of Iraqis. But what we are seeing now is not a clash between two competing world views but the testing of the balance of forces within the same one.

The split between Europe and the US is strategic, not moral. There is nothing inherent in European political culture that makes it more liberal and less imperial than America. European leaders and commentators are right to criticize the US for its brutality and imperialist pretensions. But they must do so with sufficient self-awareness to see what most of the rest of the world has seen: that their nations have acted in similar and even more pernicious ways whenever they have had the opportunity.

Without that humility in tone and historical perspective they open the door to those on the right in the US, who dismiss accusations of American wrongdoing as little more than sour grapes that Europe is no longer at the helm. Before long they are arguing not about democracy, human rights, poverty and fair trade but which empire was more benign.

This kind of bickering between the powerful has little interest to most of humanity. The difference between Europe and the US is significant and has been accentuated in recent months, but to the vast majority of the developing world American domination represents a development in the narrative of European empire, not a break from it.

At times it can even appear like an improvement. Even as anti-American sentiment is growing in France, there have been anti-French demonstrations in the former French colony of the Ivory Coast, where a peace deal brokered by France has been greeted with opposition. Last week, as the French expressed their skepticism at secretary of state Colin Powell's presentation to the security council, protesters in the capital, Abidjan, waved American flags and placards saying: "Bush please help Ivory Coast against French terrorism." The fact that America backed the very deal they were demonstrating against shows how great is the confusion and how little there is to choose between the two powers.

So long as the French, Russians, Germans and Chinese are arguing for more time for the weapons inspectors, we should support them. But we should be under no illusions as to how long that opposition will last. The more inevitable war appears, the more likely both the French and the Russians will be to cut a deal, in order to protect their interests. If America's push for war is motivated by oil, then France and Russia's push for peace is no less so - both have lucrative contracts in the region that they are keen to preserve.

Even as the French rail against US hegemony, they are carefully preparing an exit strategy. The day before Powell presented his case to the security council, a French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, headed off for three weeks of maneuvers in the eastern Mediterranean, including joint exercises with America's USS Harry Truman.

The key factor in stopping the war remains public opinion. That is what has delayed the bombing thus far, shoring up the rhetoric from European leaders and slowing down the pace of the Bush administration. The toughest test for that opposition will come if the security council lends its imprimatur to military action in a second resolution. Rather than being sidetracked by transatlantic rifts, we must argue now that while a second security council resolution would make war legal, it would not make it moral.

While it is vital that military action should take place only within international law, those laws have any credibility only if they are applied fairly, adhered to universally and executed consistently. While Powell excoriated Iraq for flouting the wishes of the international community, the UN's world court ruled unanimously that the US should stay the execution of three Mexicans on death row in Texas and Oklahoma. The US has disregarded the court in the past and is likely, on this issue, to do so again.

Both Europe and America sold arms to the Iraqi regime and have constantly shown more interest in the oil reserves under its soil than the human rights abuses that have taken place on top of it. We should support those western governments that urge caution, but we should not rely on them. We should side not with Europe or America but with the Iraqi people against both Saddam Hussein and a war that will inflict untold misery upon them and make us more vulnerable to terrorist attack than ever before.

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

Paul Nice

11-25-2004, 12:38 AM

I'm fairly well educated, I would have had no need to look up the word if you had simply implied I was projecting.

Can you point out to me where exactly I have been doing that by the way?

Sure: right here: Many americans seem to suffer from an inferiority complex so big that they just kick against the rest of the world to prove to themselves that they aren't inferior.

Incidently, if you believe that the US should protect their interests by any means nescessary then there is no possible discussion, we simply disagree whether that is right or wrong and not whether that is true or false.

I believe the US foreign policy should be based on what is best for the US, period. I am a Uniculturalist, a Nationialist and a Noninterventionist. I believe that what's best for the US would be for the US to pull ALL of her troops home from the rest of the world and let the rest of the world clean up their own messes. I believe the US should cease from toppling dictators and instating their own puppet rulers. I believe the US should cease meddling in the affairs of other nations, which means cease sending any and all foreign aid to every nation, including Israel and any other nation in the Mid East, Europe, Africa, Asia or the Americas. If an American citizen wishes to send their own money then that's their prerogitive.

Many people dismiss it as liberal propaganda but if you actually admit that that is the case we might as well wrap it up here. It won't be a shock to you that while some people see it as "nescessary evil" I see it as arrogant and selfish, but I won't try to force feed you that opinion.

If you believe that the UK, France, Germany and Russia aren't acting strictly in their own interests then you are perversely naive.

synch

11-25-2004, 02:52 AM

1 John 4:2-4

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Basically, this saying that you have confessed that you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that you are of God.

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Everyone that has said Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh is not of God, but the spirit of the antichrist, which is already in the world.

4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

In order to be of God, you must be a believer, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and has risen from the dead and now sits at the right hand of the Father and saved you from your sins. The later part of the verse talks a/b the Holy Spirit who lives in you as a believer.
Ok, that is sort of what I thought that meant but I was hoping you would explain to me what you meant by quoting it to me.

synch

11-25-2004, 03:14 AM

Sure: right here: Many americans seem to suffer from an inferiority complex so big that they just kick against the rest of the world to prove to themselves that they aren't inferior.
One thing you don't seem to understand is that there is no "Europe" in the same way as there is an "America". Europe is a continent, America is a country. I understand the confusion but as diverse as the US is most of Europe doesn't even speak the same language. The only thing that we have had in common in the past few years was that the overwhelming majority condemns the invasion of Iraq.

Furthermore I know of no one over here that has this inferiority complex that I attributed to 'many Americans' (actually I said they 'seem to suffer from' it but for the sake of arguement let's say I blatantly said that it was true). Of course I knew that you meant that sentence when I asked you to point it out but I was kind of hoping you would expand on why you thought I was doing that.

I believe the US foreign policy should be based on what is best for the US, period. I am a Uniculturalist, a Nationialist and a Noninterventionist. I believe that what's best for the US would be for the US to pull ALL of her troops home from the rest of the world and let the rest of the world clean up their own messes. I believe the US should cease from toppling dictators and instating their own puppet rulers. I believe the US should cease meddling in the affairs of other nations, which means cease sending any and all foreign aid to every nation, including Israel and any other nation in the Mid East, Europe, Africa, Asia or the Americas. If an American citizen wishes to send their own money then that's their prerogitive.
Again, we agree on all but details. I think the US should do all those things apart from "let the rest of the world clean up their own messes" as it's a bit too late for that. You can't bomb a country, burn down it's infrastructure and take out it's political structure (a dictatorship is also a political structure) and leave it to rot. Besides, that wouldn't make sense! You went there for the oil so it would be better for the US to actually secure the bloody thing! I obviously don't agree with the fact that that is the reason that they are staying but the US can't pull out of Iraq now.

As far as the other points go, yes! Please! Stop being the only country with fixed military bases all over the planet! Stop getting support from other nations by either paying 'aid' or threatning to withhold it!

You make valid points only that I would make them for a different reason.
If you believe that the UK, France, Germany and Russia aren't acting strictly in their own interests then you are perversely naive.
I never said they were, only that in this particular case France, Germany and Russia's way of securing their own interests didn't involve throwing a country into civil war.

Ace42

11-25-2004, 11:13 AM

The bible directly contradicts evolution and as you said it is a theory of man who his trying to prove that there is no God.

I said no such thing. What have we said about your inferences, stang? That's right, that they are incompetent.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Prometheus and Epimetheus journeyed from Mt. Olympus to Earth and visited the Greek province of Boitia where they made clay figures. Athena took the figures and breathed life into them. The clay figures that Prometheus had created became Man and honored him.

Sound familiar? The breathing of life into dirt / clay figures is a myth that pre-dates Christianity (and indeed, Judaism) and can be found in religions all over the world.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Golem

This fact aside (that even if you believe this to be literally true, something the greeks did not. Horace calls it "the imbuing of atoms with life" - quite different to "Breathing life into the nostrils")

Why take it literally? Why choose to believe something that makes no sense whatever, when you could equally take it to mean "The process by which God created man started with forming the building blocks needed to evolve into life. These consisted mainly of carbon. He then "triggered" the process, allowing it to, at the end of millions of years, evolve into the human being we are today."

At least that wouldn't leave out dinosaurs; neandathals, austrolapithicus, homoerectus, and numerous other non-sapiens humanoid fossils.

Have you ever wondered why the bible never tries to prove that there is a God?

Probably because aeitheism is a relatively modern concept. It didn't even exist post renaissance. There were great divides over Catholocism, Protestantism, and later Puritanism, Methodism, etc etc. Any Aethiests? Nup, none.

Try finding Egyptian scrolls that talk about circumnavigating the globe... Oooh, there are none.

You're gonna have to actually make a point based on facts to sway people. Just making supposition isn't gonna cut it.

"The Bible doesn't argue there is a God, it must be because there is one! It can't be because it was written by Jews for Christians, none of whom, by very definition, are aethiests!"

Also, please remember Stang, this is hard for you, I know, but thik really hard. You cannot, CANNOT prove the Bible is correct by using the Bible as an example. The Bible only works if you assume from the start it is correct. As you are trying to convince people who do NOT believe it is correct, simply saying "Well, the Bible says you are wrong" is totally pointless.

It's similar to someone trying to define the word cucumber by saying "It's cucumber shaped, and cucumber coloured, and tastes like cucumber" - well, that's very productive.

synch

11-25-2004, 01:52 PM

The bible directly contradicts evolution and as you said it is a theory of man who his trying to prove that there is no God.
Vaguely related to this topic, I remembered this link that was sent to me today

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

racer5.0stang

11-25-2004, 03:55 PM

Vaguely related to this topic, I remembered this link that was sent to me today

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

Wow that is amazing. I especially like the one that says to put the religious book back in the fiction section of the library.

Just so there is no confusion, that was sarcasm.

Man has pulled the wool over his eyes to shield the truth.

Proverbs 16:30
He shutteth his eyes to devise froward things: moving his lips he bringeth evil to pass.

racer5.0stang

11-25-2004, 04:11 PM

But not evolution, a theory which can be observed working on many levels in many places...

That quote sounds just like what I said, a/b evolution being a theory that tries to prove that God does not exist.

Prometheus and Epimetheus journeyed from Mt. Olympus to Earth and visited the Greek province of Boitia where they made clay figures. Athena took the figures and breathed life into them. The clay figures that Prometheus had created became Man and honored him.

Sound familiar? The breathing of life into dirt / clay figures is a myth that pre-dates Christianity (and indeed, Judaism) and can be found in religions all over the world.

Man knew that God existed before the bible was written. All nations changed their beliefs into whatever they wanted to believe, such as the Egyptians who have a god for everything. Judaism was the first to say there is only one God.

Why take it literally? Why choose to believe something that makes no sense whatever, when you could equally take it to mean "The process by which God created man started with forming the building blocks needed to evolve into life. These consisted mainly of carbon. He then "triggered" the process, allowing it to, at the end of millions of years, evolve into the human being we are today."

In order to that you would have to change God's word. When you first read something you should first take it in it's literal sense.

Genesis 1:26,27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God created man and woman in one day. They did not evolve of millions of years. In a matter of six days the stars, moon, sun, land, water, fowl, animals, man and woman, were created.

synch

11-25-2004, 04:26 PM

In order to that you would have to change God's word. When you first read something you should first take it in it's literal sense.
And afterwards you should stop and think and see whether what has been written was meant literally or was intended as a metaphor for something.

Alternatively one could also reach the conclusion that what was written may have been acceptable and reasonable in society as it was thousands of years ago but it shouldn't be taken literally in our time.

God created man and woman in one day. They did not evolve of millions of years. In a matter of six days the stars, moon, sun, land, water, fowl, animals, man and woman, were created.
I'm not equipped to discuss with you if you consider this to be an absolute fact.

Nothing personal and no hard feelings on my behalf though.

racer5.0stang

11-25-2004, 04:35 PM

Well, I guess it all boils down to what you want to believe.

On one hand you can believe that your life has no purpose and that you evolved from animals.

And on the other hand, you can believe that you were created by God and are subject to his will and purpose for your life. There are no accidents with God, there is purpose for everything He does or allows to happen.

synch

11-25-2004, 04:43 PM

Why would my life have no purpose if I believe in evolution?

racer5.0stang

11-25-2004, 04:55 PM

Well, if you believe in evolution, then you are here by accident with no purpose other than to live and live until you die. So what is the point of living a life with morals or principles? You can obey the law of the land or man's law, but why? Where is the reward for doing good?

1 John 5:12,13
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

synch

11-25-2004, 05:01 PM

Schmeltz

11-25-2004, 05:13 PM

the Egyptians who have a god for everything. Judaism was the first to say there is only one God.

Actually, the Egyptians were the first to say that there is only one God - or, rather, one Egyptian Pharaoh, Amenhotep IV (later Akhenaten), was the first to say so. This is the earliest archaeologically documented evidence for monotheism. Of course, since you believe in patent falsehoods like the Israelite conquest, I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with historical reality. Still, I feel compelled to point these things out when they arise.

racer5.0stang

11-25-2004, 05:17 PM

So the only reason you don't go on a killing spree or hit women, kick little children, steal and do other nastiness is because you are afraid of going to hell?

That's rather sad in my opinion.

I don't need some place in the clouds with winged chubby kids with harps waved in front of me to see the difference between right and wrong and to live my life in a way that doesn't cause harm to others.

No, the reason I don't go on a killing spree is because I have certain morals and principles in which I lead my life by.

Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

What is sad in my opinion is that people think that this is it. That when you die there is nothing. It is sad that we as a society, have turned away from God.

Most people whether they know it or not, follow the ten commandments, in some form or fashion. Although not all of the time.

synch

11-25-2004, 05:22 PM

No, the reason I don't go on a killing spree is because I have certain morals and principles in which I lead my life by.
So do I but they aren't based on an ancient book and the belief in an omnipotent entity.

Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

What is sad in my opinion is that people think that this is it. That when you die there is nothing. It is sad that we as a society, have turned away from God.
Why?

Most people whether they know it or not, follow the ten commandments, in some form or fashion. Although not all of the time.
Because it's common sense, not because it's in the beforementioned ancient book.

Could you avoid copy/pasting passages out of the bible and make your point in your own words please?

I have nothing against it but I find it easier to talk to you without you doing that.

Ace42

11-25-2004, 05:28 PM

That quote sounds just like what I said, a/b evolution being a theory that tries to prove that God does not exist.

If you choose to think of God as some sort of minutist, who is working is his ass off zapping every baby embryo everytime someone screws, or a plant seed every time it germinates, that is your look out. That strikes me as a truly inane theory though. God is almighty and power, but decides to create a system that is dreadfully innefficient and facile?

Your "version" of God is sounding more and more stupid. Maybe that is why you identify with him so much? Personally I find it a little bit sad that I am smarter than your God.

Man knew that God existed before the bible was written. All nations changed their beliefs into whatever they wanted to believe, such as the Egyptians who have a god for everything. Judaism was the first to say there is only one God.

Beside the point, and also wrong. There are plenty of monothiestic religions, and there were plenty of monothiestic religions at the time. The fact that Judaism survived doesn't rewrite history and make it the first.

In order to that you would have to change God's word. When you first read something you should first take it in it's literal sense.

Maybe that is why you don't get what anyone here says. Here's a better idea, when you first read something, THINK ABOUT IT.

Assuming your difficulties aren't congenital (optimistic, I fear) you may well seem up to 25% less retarded.

God created man and woman in one day. They did not evolve of millions of years. In a matter of six days the stars, moon, sun, land, water, fowl, animals, man and woman, were created.

And yet, it is scientific undeniable fact that mankind has evolved, even over the span of recorded civilisations.

All of the ancient civilisations were much shorter than current men. Being 6foot tall then was to be a "giant" - now it is to be average. Are you saying that because we have changed, we are "no longer men" beause we are "no longer fasioned in God's image" ?

'Cause it sounds to me like your God is a midgit.

God may have "created man in one day" - but those men were VERY VERY different to how we are now. And these are just developments within Homo-sapiens. Nevermind the fact that there is clear fossil evidence of lesser-developed men.

Or let me guess, like the dinosaurs, you can't explain the other sentient pre-humans? It's all part of God's mysterious plan, that he totally faild to tell anyone. "Don't mind all these remains of prehistoric man. I made them during day -1, which I then uncreated. Except for the remains...."

Pshaw.

Sorry Stang, but the bible is down to interpretation, and you are choosing to interpret it in a way that does not fit in with the facts. That doesn't make you "dogmatic" it makes you dumb.

I appreciate science can seem complicated and scary to the lay-man, but really, there is nothing to fear. Where is your faith in God when it comes to accepting fact? You think God wants you to believe something that is quite clearly nonsense?

Or does the idea that God works in ways that "aren't as mysterious as they used to be" scare you?

'Cause either way, it seems like you are a kid who doesn't want to admit Santa doesn't exist.

Your arguments ammount to "If he doesn't exist, why is his face on merchandise everywhere?" and "If he doesn't exist, how can he deliver presents all around the world?"

And like that child, you can either: Accept that Santa is a manifestation of human goodwill, and get with the presents; or stick your fingers in your ears, and say "I don't believe you" in the face of mounting evidence.

"Santa gets down small chimnies because he is magic!"

Yessss... That or he doesn't get down chimnies at all...