KevinG Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 That said, I think the Ex-Pat perspective is totally reasonable. We're not the only good, or the best country. I'm a citizen of the world first and foremost. There are a lot of fantastic lives to be lived out there in a lot of great countries. Why do you hate 'Merica? Link to post Share on other sites
lost highway Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I mean "Get off my land!". Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Many Americans today think nationalism is patriotism. They are totally confused. Bush didn't help matters when he literally said, If you're not for us, you're against us. I was against him. He can (still) fuck off. I'm actually kind of looking forward to being an ex-pat, which will be after I retire. I'll actually be living in a so-called "developing" country, but one where transgendered individuals are fairly common and don't get half the flak they get here in our "developed" world. Go figure. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 So, not Russia? Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Bush didn't help matters when he literally said, If you're not for us, you're against us.His exact words following the September 11th attacks were: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." A few days earlier, Hillary Clinton said: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us." Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 His exact words following the September 11th attacks were: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." That's worse. So if I'm anti-war, I'm with the terrorists?? Bush and Cheney should both be in prison for war crimes. By the way, according to this story, he DID say what I quoted him saying: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/ EDIT: Never mind, I see the confusion. He said both. During a press conference with French president Jacques Chirac, he said, "You are either with us or you are against us." In a joint session with Congress, he said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Here is an interesting perspective on Bush's comments from Germany: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120317040328AAXL45k Read the "Best Answer" underneath. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Hixter, I know you consider being called out in a message board's political thread an affront on basic human decency, but - you still a fan of George Zimmerman? Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Are there more details yet to today's GZ story other than some dude tried to shoot him? Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Hixter, I know you consider being called out in a message board's political thread an affront on basic human decency, but - you still a fan of George Zimmerman? Seriously, why are we wasting time thinking about this human piece of garbage? On average 289 people are shot a day in this country. Why do I care about this one? There are so many more interesting things to talk about. How about a Rand Paul staffer licking a camera of an opposition researcher? And if there was ever a time where Hixter would be right in complaining about people "calling him out" it would be this one. Ugh. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Hixter, I know you consider being called out in a message board's political thread an affront on basic human decency, but - you still a fan of George Zimmerman?I was never a "fan" of George Zimmerman. I was relieved that he was rightfully acquitted in the Trayvon Martin shooting, based upon all of the available evidence. Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Even before I read what happened with Zimmerman I was going to say he would eventually end up dead. Today he dodged another bullet, literally. Someday his time will come. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Are there more details yet to today's GZ story other than some dude tried to shoot him?The guy who tried to shoot him said that Zimmerman brandished a gun. I do not find that hard to believe, although what else is the guy gonna say? Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 FACT: If you search "George Zimmerman" + "Karma" today your computer explodes. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I was never a "fan" of George Zimmerman. I was relieved that he was rightfully acquitted in the Trayvon Martin shooting, based upon all of the available evidence. I think for the most part you were on solid ground in that discussion, but this: And if Trayvon Martin hadn't attacked George Zimmerman he would still be alive. If he had just walked home he would still be alive. If he had waited to talk to the cops he would still be alive. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. just smells bad to me. It is the opposite of the equally valid statement "If George Zimmerman had just left Trayvon Martin alone, Martin would still be alive." And you chose to side with Zimmerman. "Fan" may be over the top, but you certainly gave him more than the benefit of the doubt. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 So the whole killing Osama thing might have been a big lie. That is if you believe a bunch of unnamed sources and Seymour Hersh. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden Unnamed sources yeah! Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 but this just smells bad to me. It is the opposite of the equally valid statement "If George Zimmerman had just left Trayvon Martin alone, Martin would still be alive." And you chose to side with Zimmerman. "Fan" may be over the top, but you certainly gave him more than the benefit of the doubt.Yes, both are equally valid and they are not mutually exclusive. However, it is not an indication of fandom or bias if I only mentioned one of them. As a matter of fact, I only typed it out as an other-side-of-the-coin response to this post: If tubby had just stayed in his car as he was instructed that poor kid would still be alive. Simple as that. I won't shed any tears when Zimmerman is beaten to death on the street soon*. *sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm just really pissed and more ashamed of this country than usual today.So the whole killing Osama thing might have been a big lie. That is if you believe a bunch of unnamed sources and Seymour Hersh. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden Unnamed sources yeah!From what I've gathered, it was a single unnamed source. Sy Hersh is losing it. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I never for a moment believed that Pakistan did not know he was there and did not know we were comming. The whole set up thing sounds a bit much. I was also skeptical of the positive ID, shipping the body to the carrier and burial at sea timeline. Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I never for a moment believed that Pakistan did not know he was there and did not know we were comming. The whole set up thing sounds a bit much. I was also skeptical of the positive ID, shipping the body to the carrier and burial at sea timeline.It's almost certain that some high-ranking members of Pakistan's intelligence agency knew that he was hiding out in Abbottabad, and they likely helped him to do so. But I doubt most of the leadership were aware of his presence. Anyone who was willing to harbor the world's most wanted terrorist would be unlikely to allow American forces to swoop in and kill him. (The Pakistanis had already warned bin Laden about Clinton's incoming cruise missile strike in 1998.) Had they known about the plan in advance, they would have spirited him away and set up an ambush to kill or capture American soldiers who were participating in an illegal, armed incursion into a sovereign nation. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 an illegal, armed incursion into a sovereign nation. This would make an excellent description/summary of the Iraq War, too, by the way. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Yes, both are equally valid and they are not mutually exclusive. However, it is not an indication of fandom or bias if I only mentioned one of them. As a matter of fact, I only typed it out as an other-side-of-the-coin response to this post: Fair. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Man spurns Obamacare, now wants insurance because his bills are too high. Huh. Yeah, I get it, insurance is expensive. But not as expensive as medical bills are. I had to buy insurance when I was unemployed, and it wasn't cheap. It's all about priorities I guess. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Man spurns Obamacare, now wants insurance because his bills are too high. Huh. Yeah, I get it, insurance is expensive. But not as expensive as medical bills are. I had to buy insurance when I was unemployed, and it wasn't cheap. It's all about priorities I guess. Remember when Obamacare was going to be the end of American Life know it? Remeber when it was going to lead to higher unemployment increased healthcare costs, etc? Or when it was called the worst thing since slavery (thank you Dr. Ben Carson)? And remember through out the 2012 and 2014 election cycle the GOP trotted out Obamacare horror stories that turned out to be misrepresentations or down right lies? Granted ACA is not perfect, nor has every American benefited from it. But the facts are simple the uninsured rate is 5% less than before ACA; no one can be denied insurance based upon pre-existing conditions, children can stay on their parents insurance until 26, no charge for preventive care. And saved Americans billions. Isn't time for the GOP to give up this endless fight that Obamacare is horrible blight on our way of life and just admit that it is working, or at least not doing the harm they said it would. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS will rule in the King v Burwell case. If they declare the the subsidies in 34 states illegal, millions of peoples insurance premiums will go up drastically. This would have a disastrous impact, not false impact (like expressed from those against ACA), but a real impact and those GOP governors whose states would be impacted have no plan. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 The guy in the article complained about pricing of services...the services are always higher when you are uninsured. The insurance companies and Medicare negotiate pricing on each service offered. Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I refuse to read any response that does not contain at least as many hyperlinks as the post before it. New VC rule. Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 When I hear of Zimmerman, I always immediately think of that telegram Germany sent Mexico that offered an alliance during WW1. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts